R E S E A R C H
R E P O R T
March 2004
A Portrait of
Prisoner Reentry
in Texas
Jamie Watson
Amy L. Solomon
Nancy G. La Vigne
Jeremy Travis
with Meagan Funches and Barbara Parthasarathy
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center
Errata Sheet: A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Texas
This is a listing of the substantive (non-grammatical) errors found in A Portrait of Prisoner
Reentry in Texas (Watson, Solomon, La Vigne, and Travis 2004).
•
Page x, first paragraph: the following sentence was added: “Texas’s release patterns
reflect these admissions and population trends: 58,949 prisoners were released from
TDCJ prisons and state jails in 2002, nearly six times the number of prisoners released in
1980 (10,636).”
•
Page x, second paragraph: changed 84 percent to 86 percent; changed 23 percent to 25
percent; and changed 57 percent to 47 percent.
•
Page xi, first paragraph: changed 57 percent to 53 percent.
•
Page xi, second paragraph: changed 59 percent to 58 percent.
•
Page xiv, first paragraph: changed “…five times the number released two decades ago
(28,543 in 1980)” to “more than five times the number released two decades ago (10,636
in 1980).”
•
Page 3, figure 1.4: deleted the following note: “Release data after 1987 include prisoners
released through parole in absentia (state prisoners paroled from non-TDCJ facilities);
prior release data do not because the data are not available for those years” and changed
the remaining note to include release data: “None of the admissions or release data
include TDCJ prisoners who were admitted to county jails and completed their sentence
there” (underline added here to highlight change).
•
Page 12, first paragraph: changed 64 percent to 63 percent.
•
Page 27, fourth paragraph: changed 30 percent to 35 percent.
•
Page 29, fifth paragraph, changed 4 percent to 5 percent.
•
Page 38, first paragraph, changed 1994 to 1992.
•
Page 68, second paragraph, changed 135 to 113 and changed “return to all other zip
codes in Houston” to “return to Houston.”
•
Page 77, second paragraph, changed 93 percent to 419 percent; changed 3.3 years to 3.4
years; changed 4.5 years to 4.6 years; and changed 57 percent to 47 percent.
•
Page 77, third paragraph, changed 76 percent to 75 percent; changed 39 percent to 38
percent; and changed 61 percent to 62 percent.
•
Page 86, note 52, changed 33,410 to 33,428 and changed 59,572 to 58,949.
•
Page 93, note 161, changed 34,410 to 33,428 and changed 59,572 to 58,949.
A Portrait of
Prisoner Reentry
in Texas
Jamie Watson
Amy L. Solomon
Nancy G. La Vigne
Jeremy Travis
with Meagan Funches and Barbara Parthasarathy
Copyright @ 2004
The Urban Institute
Justice Policy Center
2100 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
www.urban.org
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to
The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. The Justice Policy Center (JPC)
carries out nonpartisan research to inform the national dialogue on crime,
justice, and community safety. For more information on JPC’s reentry
research, visit http://jpc.urban.org/reentry. To receive monthly e-mail
updates on JPC research, send an e-mail to JPC@ui.urban.org.
(202) 833-7200
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
i
About the Authors
Jamie Watson is a research associate at the Urban Institute. Her primary areas of interest focus
on prisoner reentry and community-based crime prevention and reduction initiatives. Ms.
Watson’s principal responsibility is project director for the Reentry Mapping Network, a
partnership between the Urban Institute and local organizations committed to engaging
neighborhoods by mapping and analyzing prisoner reentry at the neighborhood level. Ms. Watson
has a master’s degree in public policy from Harvard University and a B.A. in government from the
University of Texas at Austin. Her master’s thesis assessed the operational efficiencies of a
community corrections program at the Suffolk County House of Correction in Boston; the analysis
involved advanced statistical techniques and qualitative research. Ms. Watson is a native of
Longview, Texas.
Amy L. Solomon is a policy associate at the Urban Institute, where she works to link the
research activities of the Justice Policy Center to the policy and practice arenas. Her primary
areas of concentration include prisoner reentry and problem-solving approaches to community
safety. She currently manages the Reentry Roundtable series and the research partnerships with
the Council of State Governments’ Re-Entry Policy Council and the National Governors
Association’s Prisoner Reentry Policy Academy. She is currently working with several states and
communities on their reentry planning efforts. Prior to joining the Urban Institute, Ms. Solomon
served as policy analyst and acting director of strategic planning at the National Institute of
Justice. Ms. Solomon obtained her master’s degree in public policy from Harvard University and
has a B.A. in English from the University of Michigan.
Nancy G. La Vigne is a senior research associate at the Urban Institute, where she directs
several projects on prisoner reentry, including Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of
Prisoner Reentry, a multi-state, longitudinal study of the reentry experience. Prior to her current
position, she was founding director of the National Institute of Justice’s Crime Mapping Research
Center. Dr. La Vigne obtained her Ph.D. in criminal justice from Rutgers University, a master’s
degree in public administration from the University of Texas at Austin, and a B.A. in political
science from Smith College.
Jeremy Travis is a senior fellow at the Urban Institute. He is the cochair of the Reentry
Roundtable, a group of prominent academics, practitioners, service providers, and community
leaders working to advance policies and innovations on prisoner reentry that reflect solid
research. Before joining the Urban Institute, Mr. Travis directed the National Institute of Justice,
the research arm of the United States Department of Justice, from 1994 to 2000. Mr. Travis has
been a key figure in the development of a policy and research agenda on the issue of prisoner
reentry, including authoring the article “But They All Come Back: Rethinking Prisoner Reentry,”
developing the concept of the reentry court, and designing the reentry partnership initiative of the
Department of Justice. He obtained his J.D. and a master’s degree in public administration from
New York University and his B.A. in American studies from Yale University.
Meagan Funches is a project associate at the Urban Institute. Her principal responsibility at the
Urban Institute is providing research and policy support for the Justice Policy Center's many
projects focused on prisoner reentry. Her primary areas of interest include the effect of
incarceration on children and families. Ms. Funches has a B.A. in government from Harvard
University.
Barbara Parthasarathy is a research associate at the Urban Institute. Her principal responsibility
at the Urban Institute is as a criminal justice data analyst for the Federal Justice Statistics
Resource Center, a widely used database of federal justice information compiled by the Urban
Institute for the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the Department of Justice. Ms. Parthasarathy has a
B.S. in geography from the University of Maryland.
ii
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................ ix
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER 1
WHAT IS THE POLICY CONTEXT SURROUNDING PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS? .......... 1
Texas Prison population on the Rise................................................................................................1
Examination of Texas’s Incarceration Growth..................................................................................3
Summary ....................................................................................................................................14
CHAPTER 2
WHO IS RETURNING HOME? ..................................................................................................... 15
Demographics.................................................................................................................................15
Why They Were Incarcerated.........................................................................................................16
How Long They Were Incarcerated................................................................................................17
Transition to Release......................................................................................................................17
Recidivism and the Revolving Door................................................................................................18
Mental and Physical Health Problems............................................................................................19
CHAPTER 3
HOW ARE PRISONERS PREPARED FOR REENTRY?............................................................. 21
Overview of TDCJ Programs..........................................................................................................21
Education Programs .......................................................................................................................23
Employment-Readiness Programs.................................................................................................26
Substance Abuse Treatment Programs .........................................................................................29
Mental Health Care.........................................................................................................................32
Sex Offender Treatment Program ..................................................................................................33
Faith-Based Initiative ......................................................................................................................34
Behavior Adjustment Programs......................................................................................................34
Women’s Programs ........................................................................................................................35
CHAPTER 4
HOW ARE TEXAS PRISONERS RELEASED? ........................................................................... 37
A Closer Look at Discretionary Release.........................................................................................39
A Closer Look at NonDiscretionary Release ..................................................................................43
CHAPTER 5
HOW ARE TEXAS PRISONERS SUPERVISED UPON RELEASE?.......................................... 45
Caseloads ....................................................................................................................................46
Conditions of Release ....................................................................................................................47
Intensity of Supervision ..................................................................................................................48
Revocation ....................................................................................................................................49
CHAPTER 6
WHERE DO RELEASED PRISONERS GO? ............................................................................... 51
Prisoner Reentry in Dallas County .................................................................................................54
Prisoner Reentry in Tarrant County................................................................................................56
Prisoner Reentry in Bexar County ..................................................................................................58
Prisoner Reentry in Travis County..................................................................................................60
Prisoner Reentry in Harris County..................................................................................................62
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
iii
CHAPTER 7
TO WHICH HOUSTON NEIGHBORHOODS ARE TEXAS PRISONERS RETURNING?........... 65
Overview of Released Prisoners who Returned to Houston ..........................................................66
Prisoner Reentry in Houston Neighborhoods.................................................................................67
CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................... 77
Highlights ....................................................................................................................................77
Unanswered Questions ..................................................................................................................79
Future Research .............................................................................................................................79
NOTES .......................................................................................................................................... 83
APPENDIX A
CHARACTERISTICS OF EX-PRISONERS BY POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION ...................... 97
APPENDIX B
OVERVIEW OF PROBATION....................................................................................................... 99
iv
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
List of Figures
CHAPTER 1
WHAT IS THE POLICY CONTEXT SURROUNDING PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS? .......... 1
Figure 1.1.
TDCJ prison population, FY 1980 to FY 2002........................................................1
Figure 1.2.
Texas and U.S. incarceration rates (per 100,000 residents), FY 1980 to
FY 2002 ..................................................................................................................2
Figure 1.3.
TDCJ capacity (number of beds), FY 1980 to FY 1997 .........................................2
Figure 1.4.
TDCJ admissions, TDCJ releases, and sentences to prison, FY 1980 to
FY 2002 ..................................................................................................................3
Figure 1.5.
Time served by Texas releasees (in years), FY 1988 to FY 2002 .........................4
Figure 1.6.
Convicted felons in county jails awaiting transfer to TDCJ, FY 1988 to
FY 2002 ..................................................................................................................4
Figure 1.7.
Total Number of all reported crimes in Texas, FY 1988 to FY 2001......................5
Figure 1.8.
Total Number of reported violent crimes in Texas, FY 1988 to FY 2001 ...............6
Figure 1.9.
Total Number of reported property crimes in Texas, FY 1988 to FY 2001 ............6
Figure 1.10.
Adult (age 17 and older) arrests in Texas by select offense types,
FY 1988 to FY 2001 ...............................................................................................7
Figure 1.11.
TDCJ admissions by offense type as a percentage of all admissions,
FY 1988 to FY 2002 ...............................................................................................8
Figure 1.12.
Revocations as a share of TDCJ admissions, FY 1988 to FY 2002 ......................9
Figure 1.13.
Sentence length (in years) of all TDCJ releases, FY 1988 to FY 2002 ...............10
Figure 1.14.
Percentage of sentence served, FY 1988 to FY 2002 .........................................12
Figure 1.15.
Parole approval rates, FY 1988 to FY 2002 .........................................................12
Figure 1.16.
Parole and mandatory supervision releases as percentage of all releases
FY 1988 to FY 2002 .............................................................................................13
CHAPTER 2
WHO IS RETURNING HOME? ..................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2.1.
TDCJ releasees by gender, 2001.........................................................................15
Figure 2.2.
TDCJ releasees by race/ethnicity, 2001...............................................................15
Figure 2.3.
TDCJ releasees by age, 2001..............................................................................16
Figure 2.4.
TDCJ releasees by primary conviction offense, 2001..........................................16
Figure 2.5.
Texas releasees by custody at release, 2001 ......................................................18
CHAPTER 3
HOW ARE PRISONERS PREPARED FOR REENTRY?............................................................. 21
Figure 3.1.
Key TDCJ prisoner program categories by budget, FY 2000 ..............................22
Figure 3.2.
Main TDCJ programs and services, FY 2002 ......................................................24
Figure 3.3.
Academic degrees awarded to TDCJ prisoners by WSD, FY 2002.....................26
CHAPTER 4
HOW ARE TEXAS PRISONERS RELEASED? ........................................................................... 37
Figure 4.1.
TDCJ releases, FY 1988 to FY 2002 ...................................................................37
Figure 4.2.
TDCJ discretionary and nondiscretionary releases as a percentage of all
releases, FY 1988 to FY 2002..............................................................................38
Figure 4.3.
State prisoner and confinee discretionary releases as a percentage of all
releases, FY 1988 to FY 2002..............................................................................38
Figure 4.4.
Summary of release types....................................................................................40
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
v
CHAPTER 5
HOW ARE TEXAS PRISONERS SUPERVISED UPON RELEASE?.......................................... 45
Figure 5.1.
Percentage of all TDCJ releases released to supervision, FY 1988 to
FY 2002. ...............................................................................................................45
Figure 5.2.
Percentage of all released state prisoners and confinees released to
supervision, FY 1988 to FY 2002. ........................................................................46
Figure 5.3.
Active parole population in Texas, FY 1988 to FY 2002. .....................................47
Figure 5.4.
Texas parole facilities, capacity, and usage, FY 2002. ........................................48
Figure 5.5.
Parole and mandatory supervision revocations as a percentage of all
TDCJ admissions, FY 1988 to FY 2002. ..............................................................49
CHAPTER 6
WHERE DO RELEASED PRISONERS GO? ............................................................................... 51
Figure 6.1.
Number and rate of prisoner releasees to Texas by county, 2001 ......................52
Figure 6.2.
Percentage of prisoner releasees to Texas by county, 2001 ...............................53
Figure 6.3.
Percentage of supervised releasees to Dallas County by zip code, 2001 ...........55
Figure 6.4.
Offense types of Dallas County prisoner releasees and all Texas prisoner
releasees, 2001 ....................................................................................................55
Figure 6.5.
Percentage of supervised releasees to Tarrant County by zip code, 2001 .........57
Figure 6.6.
Offense types of Tarrant County prisoner releasees and all Texas prisoner
releasees, 2001 ....................................................................................................57
Figure 6.7.
Percentage of supervised releasees to Bexar County by zip code, 2001............59
Figure 6.8.
Offense types of Bexar County prisoner releasees and all Texas prisoner
releasees, 2001 ....................................................................................................59
Figure 6.9.
Percentage of supervised releasees to Travis County by zip code, 2001 ...........61
Figure 6.10.
Offense types of Travis County prisoner releasees and all Texas prisoner
releasees, 2001 ....................................................................................................61
Figure 6.11.
Percentage of supervised releasees to Harris County by zip code, 2001 ...........63
Figure 6.12.
Offense types of Harris County prisoner releasees and all Texas prisoner
releasees, 2001 ....................................................................................................63
CHAPTER 7
TO WHICH HOUSTON NEIGHBORHOODS ARE TEXAS PRISONERS RETURNING?........... 65
Figure 7.1.
Houston residents, Houston supervised releasees, and all TDCJ
releasees by race/ethnicity, 2001.........................................................................67
Figure 7.2.
Houston supervised releasees and all TDCJ releasees by offense type,
2001......................................................................................................................67
Figure 7.3.
Supervised releasees to Houston’s high-return neighborhoods by zip code,
2001......................................................................................................................68
Figure 7.4.
Numbers and rates of supervised releasees returning to Houston’s
high-return zip codes, 2001 ..................................................................................69
Figure 7.5.
Rates of supervised releasees returning to Texas, Harris County, Houston,
and Houston’s high-return neighborhoods (per 1,000 residents), 2001...............69
Figure 7.6.
Rank of Houston’s seven high-return neighborhoods by demographic
characteristic, 2001 ..............................................................................................70
Figure 7.7.
Rate of selected crimes (per 1,000 residents) by Houston neighborhoods,
2001......................................................................................................................70
Figure 7.8
Percentage of residents below the federal poverty level by Houston
neighborhood, 2001..............................................................................................71
Figure 7.9.
Percentage of female-headed households by Houston neighborhood,
2001......................................................................................................................71
Figure 7.10.
Percentage of unemployed residents by Houston neighborhood, 2001 ..............72
Figure 7.11.
Percentage of renter-occupied housing by Houston neighborhood, 2001...........72
Figure 7.12.
Social services for Houston’s high-return neighborhoods, 2001..........................76
Figure 7.13.
Percentage of supervised releasees and services by Houston
neighborhoods, 2001............................................................................................77
vi
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the many individuals and organizations that made valuable
contributions to this report. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) provided the data
that serve as the backbone for our analysis; specifically, we are grateful for the support and
assistance of Gary Johnson, executive director of TDCJ; Dimitria Pope, director of the
Research, Evaluation and Development Group; Michelle Moczygemba Connolly, assistant
director of the Research, Evaluation and Development Group; Doug Dretke, director of the
Correctional Institutions Division; Virginia Gibbons, program administrator II of the Parole
Division’s Information Services; Debbie Roberts, former director of the Programs and Services
Division; Jeff Baldwin, senior executive assistant to the executive director; Wanda Redding,
program administrator II of the Programs and Services Division; Travis Henderson, coordinator
of Government Relations, Planning, and Evaluation of the Windham School District; and Gaylon
Oswalt, former director of the Community Justice Assistance Division’s Research Division. We
are also grateful to many of these individuals for reviewing an early draft of this document. The
Criminal Justice Policy Council also offered invaluable assistance in the early stages of the
project by providing supplemental statistics, answering a myriad of questions about the
corrections system in Texas, and reviewing an early version of this report. In particular, we
would like to thank Tony Fabelo, former executive director; Andrew Barbee, former research
specialist; and Mike Eisenberg, former senior research associate. Gratitude is also owed to Mike
Lesco, deputy administrator of the Crime Records at the Texas Department of Public Safety.
Elycia Daniel, from Sam Houston State University, collected the data on Houston-based
services for returning prisoners. From the Urban Institute, we would like to thank Christy Visher,
Sinead Keegan, Daniel P. Mears, and Megan Schaffer for providing critical feedback on earlier
drafts of this report. We also thank the JEHT Foundation and the Houston Endowment for
funding this project. Without them, this report would not have been possible.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
vii
Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner
Reentry
A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Texas is part of a larger Urban Institute initiative entitled
Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. The purpose of Returning
Home is to develop a deeper understanding of the reentry experiences of returning prisoners,
their families, and their neighborhoods. With support from the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, the Houston Endowment, and the JEHT Foundation, the Urban Institute has launched
Returning Home in Texas. This research project involves interviews with state prisoners before
and after their release from state correctional facilities, interviews with ex-prisoners’ family
members, focus groups with residents in neighborhoods to which many prisoners return, analysis
of extant data on local indicators of community well-being, and interviews with community
stakeholders. State laws and policies will also be reviewed to provide the overall political and
policy context. The results of this research on reentry in Texas will be published in 2005 and will
also be part of a larger cross-state analysis based on Returning Home research conducted in
Maryland, Illinois, and Ohio.
viii
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
Executive Summary
T
he growing number of prisoners—55,183 in 2001—
returning to neighborhoods throughout Texas
elevates the importance of prisoner reentry in the
state. This report describes the process of prisoner reentry in
Texas by examining the policy context surrounding reentry,
the characteristics and geographic distribution of the state’s
returning prisoners, how prisoners are prepared for their
release, the process by which they are released, how they are
supervised once released, and the social and economic
Note on Language
“Confinees” are prisoners under
the custody of TDCJ who have
been convicted of a state jail
felony offense and sentenced to
no more than two years in a
state jail. “State prisoners” are
all other prisoners under the
custody of TDCJ. In this report,
the term “prisoner” represents
all those persons under TDCJ
custody, which includes both
state prisoners and confinees.
climates of the neighborhoods that are home to the largest
numbers of returning prisoners. This report does not attempt
to evaluate a specific reentry program nor does it empirically
assess reentry policies and practices in Texas. Rather, the
report consolidates existing data on incarceration and release trends and presents a new analysis
of data on Texas prisoners released in 2001. The data used for this report were derived from
several sources, including the U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Texas
Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), Criminal Justice Policy Council, Texas Department of
Public Safety, Houston Police Department, and City of Houston’s Planning and Development
Department. Highlights from the report follow.
Historical Incarceration and Release Trends. Texas’s incarceration and reentry trends are
similar to those observed at the national level. Between 1980 and 2001, the total number of
prisoners in Texas increased fivefold, from 28,543 to 151,003 prisoners. In this period, the per
capita rate of imprisonment in Texas rose 248 percent (from 199 to 693 prisoners per 100,000
residents), mirroring the 242 percent increase in the U.S. imprisonment rate (from 139 to 476
prisoners per 100,000 residents). The growth in Texas’s prison population is largely attributable
to rising prison admissions and longer lengths of stay in prison. Admissions increased primarily
due to an increase in arrests for violent and drug crimes and an increase in the number of felony
convictions. Prisoners were spending more time in prison mainly because most received longer
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
ix
sentences and were serving longer portions of their sentences (time served). Falling parole
approval rates and legislation requiring prisoners to serve greater percentages of their sentences
both contributed to the increase in time served. Texas’s release patterns reflect these admissions
and population trends: 58,949 prisoners were released from TDCJ prisons and state jails in 2002,
nearly six times the number of prisoners released in 1980 (10,636).
Profile of Prisoners Released in 2001. Approximately two-thirds (36,538) of TDCJ prisoners
released to Texas addresses were state prisoners and approximately one-third (18,107) were
confinees. Most were male (86 percent), and nearly half (44 percent) were non-Hispanic black, a
third (32 percent) were non-Hispanic white, and 24 percent were Hispanic. The median age at
release was 34. The greatest share (39 percent) of TDCJ releases had been incarcerated for drug
offenses; 33 percent had been incarcerated for property offenses; and 17 percent had been
incarcerated for violent offenses. One-quarter had violated parole or mandatory supervision either
by committing a new offense or a technical violation. The largest share (53 percent) of prisoners
released in 2001 had served less than two years in state correctional facilities, and the next largest
share (25 percent) had served more than five years. State prisoners were incarcerated, on average,
for 4.6 years after serving 47 percent of their sentences. Confinees were incarcerated, on average,
for 11 months after serving 100 percent of their sentences.
How Prisoners Are Prepared for Release. In 2002, most TDCJ prisoners participated in work
activities, a substantial proportion participated in work-readiness and education programs, and
few are documented to have participated in vocational or formal substance abuse treatment
programs. TDCJ reports that 85 percent of all prisoners are participating in work activities at any
given time, and 69,506 prisoners (35 percent of potential participants) participated in Project
Rio—TDCJ’s main work-readiness program. Approximately 83,337 prisoners participated in
basic educational programs (approximately 42 percent of possible participants), and 12,463 (6
percent of possible participants) participated in college-level courses and vocational classes. At
least 9,000 prisoners (5 percent of potential participants) were admitted to TDCJ’s formal
substance abuse programs prior to release, and at least 8,700 prisoners participated in postrelease
inpatient substance abuse programs. Additional prisoners reportedly participated in substance
abuse programs, but participation rates for many programs were unavailable.
How Prisoners Are Released. In 2001, 62 percent of Texas prisoners were released through
nondiscretionary means (i.e., mandatory release or expiration of sentence). Of the remaining 38
percent, nearly all were released through the approval of the Board of Pardons and Paroles. Most
state prisoners were released through a parole board decision; confinees are ineligible for this
type of release. The number of prisoners released by a parole board decision has decreased
dramatically over the past decade.
x
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
Life on the Outside: Parole and Probation Supervision. In 2001, more than half (53 percent)
of released prisoners were subject to parole supervision after release (whether released through
parole or mandatory supervision), and 2 percent were subject to felony probation supervision
after release. While most state prisoners are eligible for postrelease supervision through parole or
mandatory supervision, no confinees are. Thus, most (84 percent) state prisoners are subject to
postrelease supervision, compared with less than 3 percent of confinees.
Geographic Distribution of Released Prisoners. The vast majority (99 percent) of Texas
prisoners released in 2001 were released to Texas communities. Over half (58 percent) returned
to 5 of Texas’s 254 counties. A quarter (26 percent, or 14,129 prisoners) returned to Harris
County, 15 percent (7,971 prisoners) returned to Dallas County, 8 percent (4,097 prisoners)
returned to Tarrant County, 6 percent (3,156 prisoners) returned to Bexar County, and 4 percent
(2,342 prisoners) returned to Travis County. Examining returns at a more localized level, the
largest share (23 percent) of supervised releasees returned to the city of Houston, which is located
in Harris County (return zip codes are unavailable for prisoners not released to supervision).
Within Houston, these releasees are most heavily concentrated in 5 of the city’s 185 zip codes,
and these zip codes span seven neighborhoods: Alief, East Houston, East Little York/Homestead,
Kashmere Gardens, Trinity/Houston Gardens, Third Ward, and MacGregor. Each of these
neighborhoods received more than 200 supervised releasees in 2001, more than returned to some
entire counties in Texas. It should be noted that the presence of a halfway house in East Houston
may explain the large number of releases returning to that zip code. High levels of poverty and
crime also characterize most of these neighborhoods.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
xi
xii
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
Introduction
T
his report examines prisoner reentry in the state of Texas. Prisoner reentry—the process
of leaving state correctional facilities and returning to society—has become a pressing
issue both in Texas and nationwide. Rising incarceration rates over the past quarter
century have resulted in more and more prisoners being released from prison each year.
Nationally, an estimated 630,000 prisoners were released from state and federal prisons in 2001, a
fourfold increase over the past two decades.1 Thus, released prisoners, their families, and the
neighborhoods to which they return must cope with the challenges of reentry on a much greater
scale than ever before.
And the challenges of reentry are many indeed. More prisoners nationwide are returning
home having spent longer terms behind bars than in the past, exacerbating the already significant
challenges of finding employment and reconnecting with family.2 Prisoners today are typically
less prepared for reintegration, less connected to community-based social structures, and more
likely to have health or substance abuse problems than in the past.3 In addition to these personal
circumstances, limited availability of jobs, housing, and social services in a community may
affect the returning state prisoner’s ability to successfully reintegrate.4
These challenges affect more than returning prisoners and their families; they can also
have serious public safety implications for the neighborhoods to which prisoners return. Reentry
concerns are most pressing in major metropolitan areas across the country, to which about twothirds of the state prisoners released in 1996 returned—up from 50 percent in 1984.5 Within
central cities, released prisoners may be even more concentrated in a few neighborhoods.6 These
high concentrations of returning prisoners may generate substantial costs to those neighborhoods,
including increases in crime, greater public health risks, and high rates of unemployment and
homelessness. Developing a thorough understanding of the characteristics of returning state
prisoners and the challenges they face is an important first step in shaping public policy toward
improving the safety and welfare of all citizens.
In many ways, the dimensions and challenges of prisoner reentry observed on the
national level are mirrored in the state of Texas. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice
(TDCJ) is the state agency responsible for individuals incarcerated in state prisons, state jails, and
private prisons. This agency also supervises individuals on parole and mandatory supervision
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
xiii
through the TDCJ Parole Division and oversees adult probation (community supervision) through
the TDCJ Community Justice Assistance Division. In 2001, 55,183 people were released from
TDCJ correctional facilities—more than five times the number released two decades ago (10,636
in 1980).7
Nearly all (99 percent) of the men and women released from Texas facilities returned to
neighborhoods in Texas.8 Of those prisoners who returned to Texas, 59 percent returned to 5 of
254 counties in Texas. Approximately a quarter (26 percent) returned to Harris County, 15
percent resumed residence in Dallas County, about 8 percent returned to Tarrant County, 6
percent went home to Bexar County, and 4 percent returned to Travis County.
With the largest share of ex-prisoners returning to Harris County, this report gives special
attention to Houston, the largest metropolitan city in Harris County, using the data set provided
by TDCJ. Of the prisoners released to supervision who returned to Harris County, 88 percent
established residence in Houston. Within Houston, the flow of these prisoners was further
concentrated in a small number of neighborhoods. A quarter of the 5,823 supervised releasees
who returned to Houston returned to 5 of the city’s 185 zip codes: 77072, the vast majority of
which is encompassed by the neighborhood of Alief; 77078, most of which is included in the
neighborhood of East Houston, where a halfway house is located; 77004, which spans the
neighborhoods of Greater Third Ward and MacGregor; 77026, most of which spans the
neighborhoods of Kashmere Gardens and Trinity/Houston Gardens; and 77016, which is mostly
encompassed by the neighborhoods of East Little York/Homestead and Trinity/Houston Gardens.
These neighborhoods, which already face great social and economic disadvantages, may
experience the challenges of reentry more acutely.
Government leaders, corrections officials, local organizations, and service providers are
keenly aware of the reentry challenges in Texas, and they have begun to use both research and
programmatic knowledge to address them. In July 2002, the Texas Department of Criminal
REENTRY DEFINED
For the purposes of this report, “reentry” is defined as the process of individuals leaving
adult correctional institutions and returning to society. We have limited our scope to
those sentenced to serve time in state correctional institutions to focus on individuals
who are convicted of more serious offenses, are eligible for state correctional
programs, and are managed by state correctional, parole, and felony probation
systems. Texas holds two categories of felons in state correctional facilities. The first
category is referred to as “state prisoner” and the second category is referred to as
“confinee.” (See the sidebar “State Jail Confinees” on page xvi for a discussion of the
history of confinees and differences between state prisoners and confinees.) In spite of
differences between these populations, illustration of a more complete picture of reentry
in Texas requires a discussion of both populations since they are both under state
custody and confinees now represent a third of all TDCJ releases. While the two
populations may require different reentry programs and policies, the vast majority of
both populations returns to the community following state custody and are therefore
both components of the reentry phenomenon in Texas. A comprehensive depiction of
reentry in Texas, describing prisoners released from county jails, state prisons, federal
institutions, and juvenile facilities returning to the state, is beyond the scope of this
report. This report is intended to inform the policy and practice for those persons under
adult state custody.
xiv
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
Justice was awarded $2 million from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
as part of the federal government’s Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, which
supports reentry initiatives nationwide. This recent grant provides the opportunity for Texas to
continue to expand upon current reentry initiatives in the state. Specifically, a share of the funds
will be used to develop reentry programs for administrative segregation prisoners, who currently
have access to few or no programs, from three counties (Bexar, Dallas, and Harris).9 Texas also
has a well-established reentry program, Project RIO (Reintegration of Offenders), which
launched in 1985. Project RIO assists approximately 70,000 prisoners each year, before and after
their release, in finding and securing employment.10 Several other reentry initiatives have been
established in Harris County in recent years, such as Barriers to Employment, Girl Scouts Behind
Bars, and the InnerChange Freedom Initiative. For example, the Joe Kegans State Jail (located in
Houston) and the United Way’s Career and Recovery Resources agency began Barriers to
Employment, an in-prison program that prepares state jail felons to secure employment following
release.11 These collaborative efforts are positive steps toward improving reentry outcomes in
Texas and, specifically, in Houston, the city housing the greatest share of returning prisoners.
This report is designed to contribute to the efforts under way in Texas to enhance public
safety and improve the prospects for successful state prisoner reintegration. It is important to note
that this report does not attempt to evaluate a specific reentry program, nor does it empirically
assess Texas’s reentry policies and practices. Rather, the process and characteristics of state
prisoner reentry in Texas are described by answering several questions that frame the
organization of the report:
•
What is the policy context surrounding state prisoner reentry in Texas?
•
Who is returning home?
•
How are Texas prisoners prepared for reentry?
•
How are Texas prisoners released?
•
How are Texas prisoners supervised upon release?
•
Where are Texas prisoners going?
•
To which Houston neighborhoods are prisoners returning?
The report begins by describing the policy context surrounding incarceration and reentry
in Texas, followed by a description of the characteristics of prisoners released from Texas in 2001
and the ways in which Texas prisoners are prepared for release. Next we provide an overview of
the institutional release process and of postrelease supervision trends and processes. We then turn
our attention to an analysis of reentry in select Texas counties, and then further focus on Houston,
to which the largest number and percentage of Texas releasees return. We describe and discuss
the characteristics of Houston and the unique challenges the city faces because of the
reintegration of prisoners. The report concludes with a spatial analysis of select neighborhoods in
Houston to which a large percentage of prisoners return. It is our hope that this report will provide
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
xv
a useful, factual foundation for the individuals and organizations working to improve reentry
outcomes for state prisoners, their families and neighborhoods, and the general public in Texas.
STATE JAIL CONFINEES
In 1993, the Texas legislature revised the state’s criminal law code and established a
new felony offense class, state jail felonies. 12 The legislature shifted low-level drug
and property offenders (nonviolent Class A misdemeanors and third-degree felons)
into this category primarily to reduce overcrowding in state prisons, the cost of
incarceration, and recidivism. This law took effect on September 1, 1994. The majority
(78 percent) of offenders convicted of a state jail felony offense are sentenced to a
term of probation, but most of the remaining offenders are sentenced to a period of
incarceration in one of Texas’s 17 state jails. Texas criminal justice officials refer to
those prisoners confined in state jails as “confinees” and are referenced as such in
this report.
Confinees are sentenced to state jails for new state jail felony offenses (direct
sentence), up-front time (incarceration prior to release to probation), or probation
revocation; they are not sentenced to these facilities for parole or mandatory
supervision revocation. Unlike state prisoners who generally cannot receive sentences
of less than two years, confinees cannot receive sentences longer than two years. For
all other sentences besides probation revocation (which requires that a confinee serve
the remainder of his sentence), confinees cannot receive a sentence of less than 75
days. While most state prisoners are released early through parole or credits for good
behavior, virtually all confinees serve every day of their sentences since none are
eligible for these early release mechanisms. In turn, 97 percent of state jail offenders
are not supervised upon release while 84 percent of state prisoners are. Confinees,
however, are obligated to participate in six hours of community service or educational,
vocational, or substance abuse programs each day.
In addition to confinees, state jails house for up to two years nonviolent state prisoners
awaiting relocation to a state prison. As of July 31, 1998, confinees accounted for
slightly more than a third (38 percent) of those held in Texas’s state jails; transfer
prisoners accounted for the remaining two-thirds (62 percent).
xvi
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
ABOUT THE DATA
The data used for this report were derived from several sources. Longitudinal data
describing the policy context of incarceration and reentry trends in Texas were derived
from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics and statistics
compiled by various agencies within the state of Texas, such as the Criminal Justice
Policy Council (CJPC) and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Community-level
data used to develop the maps of reentry, as well as related demographic and
socioeconomic status data by Houston neighborhood, were derived from census data
compiled by the city of Houston, available from their website, http://ci.houston.tx.us/.
The City of Houston also provided the crime rate data and the files that enabled us to
aggregate and map data according to the 88 Houston community areas. Elycia Daniel,
a Ph.D. candidate at Sam Houston State University, collected the offender services
data for Houston.
The available data from each of these sources spanned different periods—some had
data for only a few years, while others had data for two decades or longer. Rather than
truncating longitudinal data so that graphs and statistics from all sources cover a
common time span, we chose to include all years for which we were able to obtain
data points. As a result, readers will not always be able to make year-to-year
comparisons across graphs. Much of our consecutive longitudinal data begins in fiscal
year 1988, the first year of data that the CJPC was able to review and clean to ensure
its reliability, and stops at fiscal year 2002. In some cases, we were able to obtain a
single data point for a more recent year. In these instances, because of the gaps
between data points, readers may see statistics presented in the text that are not
included in the figures.
Data on the population of prisoners released from Texas prisons and state jails in
calendar year 2001 were obtained from TDCJ and represent only those prisoners
released to the community from TDCJ custody. Prisoners who received sentences of
less than one year are included in the sample. These short-term prisoners face
different reentry challenges since they are housed for relatively short periods of time,
are ineligible for some programs, and are not subject to postrelease supervision.
However, confinees make up a growing proportion of the state prisoner release
population (36 percent in 2002) and, therefore, are included in this report.
The 2001 cohort data from TDCJ include the state, county, and zip code to which
prisoners returned. These data were used to analyze the geographic location of
prisoners following their release. The state and county to which prisoners returned
was available for 65 percent of all prisoners in the data set; the state and county of
release for the remaining 34 percent of prisoners were approximated by using the
state and county of conviction. These data were available for all but 1 percent of
prisoners. Zip codes were used for an analysis of the prisoners returning to the five
counties receiving the greatest share of ex-prisoners. Zip codes were only available
for prisoners released to parole or mandatory supervision (42 percent of all prisoners).
We compared both groups (those with and those without zip code information
available) across a host of demographic and criminal justice characteristics. A chisquare test revealed statistically significant differences across all variables (see the
summary of the characteristics of these populations in appendix A). Thus, readers
should refrain from generalizing the characteristics of supervised releasees to those of
non-supervised releases (see the summary of the characteristics of these populations
in appendix A).
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
xvii
ABOUT THE DATA (CONTINUED)
It should also be noted that because zip codes can span neighborhoods and counties,
the maps showing the location of released prisoners to Houston neighborhoods by zip
codes are approximate. The same is true for the Houston crime rate by community data.
Because the crime data were available by police beat rather than by community, the
police beats were aggregated to the community level. As with zip codes, police beats
can span multiple communities and thus the crime rate distributions are approximations.
The Criminal Justice Policy Council’s reports and statistical tables are the basis of most
of the longitudinal data describing trends for TDCJ prisoners. The reported TDCJ
admissions underestimate the actual number of state prisoners admitted to correctional
custody. These data do not include state prisoners who are never admitted to TDCJ
facilities; the data therefore miss state prisoners who complete their sentences in county
jails, out-of-state jails or prisons, or federal prisons. The undercount is noteworthy. Most
of the uncounted prisoners are housed in county jails. Thousands of state prisoners
have been and are held in county jails at any given time (5,778 convicted felons were
held in the county jails in fiscal year 2002). But the largest overflow to the county jails
occurred between 1990 and 1994, during which time TDCJ held up to 26,000 state
prisoners in county jails; the data during these years are thus expected to undercount
admissions and releases to the greatest extent. Likewise, during these years, around
10,000 prisoners were paroled from facilities not administered by TDCJ each year under
“parole in absentia.”
We address these challenges in several ways. To capture the true standing prison
population totals, we add those TDCJ prisoners held in county jails to the standing TDCJ
prison population counts. The prison population counts therefore only miss those Texas
felons not held in either TDCJ facilities or county jails in Texas, such as out-of-state
prisons, but the total number of missed prisoners is expected to be low. Thus, the prison
population estimates should be generally accurate.
Producing an accurate estimation of admissions trends is more difficult given that the
annual admissions of state prisoners to non-TDCJ facilities are unavailable. However, to
show an estimation of the maximum number of admissions possible, we illustrate the
total number of sentences to state prison in addition to the total number of TDCJ
admissions. Sentences to state jail are not available, but because these facilities have
not been overcrowded, the total number of admissions to state jails should approximate
the total number of newly sentenced state jail felons admitted to correctional facilities.
To compare trends for admissions and releases, we report releases from TDCJ facilities
only.
xviii
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
CHAPTER 1
What Is the Policy Context Surrounding
Prisoner Reentry in Texas?
T
o fully understand prisoner reentry in Texas, it is first necessary to examine the state’s
trends in sentencing, corrections, and release. This chapter provides an overview of these
trends and describes the factors that contributed to the rapid growth in Texas’s prison
population.
TEXAS PRISON POPULATION ON THE RISE
Over the past two decades, the Texas prison population grew tremendously, reflecting the rise in
prison populations nationwide.13 From 1980 to 2002, the Texas prison population increased more
than fivefold, from 28,543 to 151,003 (figure 1.1).14 During this time, the Texas incarceration rate
grew 248 percent (from 199 to 693 prisoners per 100,000 residents) while the U.S. incarceration
rate grew 242 percent (from 139 to 476 prisoners per 100,000 residents) (figure 1.2).15 By the end
of 2002, Texas held the second-largest state prison population in the nation and had the thirdhighest state incarceration rate.16
Figure 1.1. TDCJ prison population, FY 1980 to FY 2002
160,000
140,000
1995
133,614
120,000
100,000
80,000
1991
57,873
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
Source: Urban Institute analysis of TDCJ, Criminal Justice Policy Council, and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
1
Figure 1.2. Texas and U.S. incarceration rates (per 100,000 residents), FY 1980 to FY 2002
800
700
600
Texas
500
400
U.S.
300
200
100
0
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
Source: Urban Institute analysis of TDCJ, Criminal Justice Policy Council, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, and U.S. Census
Bureau data.
Figure 1.3. TDCJ capacity (number of beds), FY 1980 to FY 1997
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
Source: Urban Institute analysis of TDCJ data.
The number of state correctional facilities doubled in the 1980s, from 17 to 35, and
tripled in the 1990s, from 35 to 105.17 Likewise, between 1980 and 1997, the number of beds
available to house Texas prisoners increased by 473 percent, from 25,129 to 143,908 (figure
1.3).18 The legislature appropriated nearly $2.3 billion between 1988 and 1997 to construct
108,597 beds.19
Overall spending on state corrections has also increased during this time. Between 1990
and 2000, total appropriations for TDCJ increased by 31 percent, rising from $1.8 billion in 1990
(adjusted for inflation) to $2.4 billion in 2000.20 In fiscal year 1999, Texas spent $179 per capita
on corrections, slightly higher than the national average of $162 and representing the 12th-highest
per capita corrections expenditures in the nation.21 However, given the large number of prisoners
2
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
incarcerated in Texas, these costs average approximately $40 per prisoner per day, which is
significantly lower than the national average of $54.22
EXAMINATION OF TEXAS’S INCARCERATION GROWTH
Although the Texas prison population has grown throughout the past three decades, it grew most
dramatically from 1991 to 1995. In these years, the state prison population grew by nearly 120
percent (from 57,873 to 127,559), and the incarceration rate grew by 114 percent, from 334 to
715 prisoners per 100,000 residents (figures 1.1 and 1.2). This section examines potential causes
underlying these trends, devoting special attention to these years.
A state’s prison population may grow if admissions to prison increase and/or prisoners
spend more time in prison. Increases in both of these factors—prison admissions and the time
spent in prison (time served)—contributed to the growth in Texas’s prison population. Between
1988 and 2002, TDCJ admissions grew 78 percent, from 33,816 to 60,196 prisoners per year
(figure 1.4). Likewise, released prisoners’ time served grew 83 percent, from 1.8 to 3.3 years on
average (figure 1.5). As the following discussion will show, admissions increased during this time
primarily due to a rising number of arrests for violent and drug crimes and an increase in felony
convictions. Notably, crime fell during most of this period of time in spite of growth in the
number of Texas adult residents. Time served increased mainly because most prisoners were
serving longer sentences and prisoners were also serving longer portions of their sentences.
Prisoners served greater portions of their sentences due to falling parole approval rates and
legislation that required prisoners serve longer portions of their sentences.
Figure 1.4. TDCJ admissions, TDCJ releases, and sentences to prison, FY 1980 to FY 2002
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
Sentences to prison & confinee admissions
Note:
1992
1994
TDCJ releases
1996
1998
2000
2002
TDCJ admissions
None of the admissions or release data include TDCJ prisoners who were admitted to county jails and completed their
sentence there.
Source: Urban Institute analysis of TDCJ and Criminal Justice Policy Council data.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
3
Figure 1.5. Time served by Texas releases (in years), FY 1988 to FY 2002
6
5
State prisoners only
4
3
All TDCJ releases
2
1
Confinees only
0
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Criminal Justice Policy Council data.
Before proceeding to a more in-depth discussion of these trends, an explanation of the
peaks and valleys that characterized TDCJ admissions and releases between 1990 and 1995 is
warranted (figure 1.4).23 These fluctuations reflect the fact that the admissions and release totals
only reflect admissions and releases to TDCJ facilities, and during this time many felons were
admitted and released from non-TDCJ facilities (e.g., county jails) due to overcrowding in TDCJ
facilities. Between 1988 and 1990, admissions approximated the total number of sentences to
prison. Then, from 1991 to 1994, many TDCJ prisoners were admitted to county jails rather than
to TDCJ facilities to manage overcrowding.24 Consequently, sentences to prison far exceeded
admissions during this time. The overflow to county jails peaked in 1993 at close to 26,000 state
prisoners (figure 1.6). Admissions grew dramatically in 1995 with the opening of 36,000 TDCJ
beds. Consequently, admissions closely approximated sentences to prison after this year. During
this time, release trends tended to follow admission trends.
Figure 1.6. Convicted felons in county jails awaiting transfer to TDCJ, FY 1988 to FY 2002
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Policy Council.
4
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
2000
2002
Increased Admissions
Increases in crime rates and, in particular, violent crime rates across the United States in the latter
part of the 20th century heightened concerns about public safety and coincided with a shift in the
political landscape. American sentencing policy generally became more punitive, policing
practices more stringent, and revocations of parole and probation more common. The
convergence of these forces together often resulted in increased admissions to prison. This section
reviews the role that each of these factors played in Texas admissions from 1988 to 2002.
Crime Trends
An increase in the number of crimes can lead to an increase in arrests, convictions, and
ultimately, to an increase in prison admissions.25 In Texas, however, crime does not appear to
have contributed to the increase in prison admissions.
Crime in Texas was stable between 1988 and 1991 (figure 1.7). Crime then fell until
2000 when it began to rise slightly. Total crimes fell throughout the 1990s—even while adult
residents in Texas increased in number (by 23 percent).26 Taking Texas’s population growth into
account, we find that Texas’s crime rate (reported crimes per 100,000 residents) had begun to
generally decline in 1988 and continued to fall until 2000.
These numbers portray overall crime trends, however, and include many crimes that do
not typically result in prison sentences. Therefore, overall crime could decrease while the prison
population could increase as a result of an increase in serious crimes, which are more likely to
result in prison sentences. Violent (serious) crime rose between 1988 and 1991.27 In 1988, violent
crimes approached 110,000; by 1991, violent crime slightly exceeded 140,000 (figure 1.8).
Violent crime then fell and continued to fall until beginning to slightly increase after 1998. In
2001, violent crimes totaled approximately 120,000. Between 1988 and 1991, property crime
remained stable; it then fell until 2000, when it began to rise again (figure 1.9).28 In 2001,
Figure 1.7. Total number of all reported crimes in Texas, FY 1988 to FY 2001
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Criminal Justice Policy Council data.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
5
Figure 1.8. Total number of reported violent crimes in Texas, FY 1988 to FY 2001
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Criminal Justice Policy Council data.
Figure 1.9. Total number of reported property crimes in Texas, FY 1988 to FY 2001
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Criminal Justice Policy Council data.
property crimes totaled less than 1 million. Thus, the most serious offenses (violent), along with
less serious offenses (property), were both falling during the period when Texas’s incarceration
rate was growing most significantly. An analysis of these trends for drug crimes cannot be
included in this discussion since police departments in Texas and throughout the United States do
not record reported drug crimes due to the fact that they rarely involve a victim.
Arrest and Conviction Trends
Regardless of trends for incidence in crime, admissions to prison may increase if police
departments are making more arrests and those arrested receive prison sentences. A marked rise
in arrests for drug and violent crimes, along with an increase in felony convictions, likely
contributed significantly to Texas’s growing admissions.
6
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
Figure 1.10. Adult (age 17 and older) arrests in Texas by select offense types, FY 1988 to FY 2001
145,000
Property
125,000
105,000
DWI
Violent
85,000
65,000
Drug
45,000
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Texas Department of Public Safety.
In Texas, adult arrests grew by 25 percent (from 752,698 to 942,481) between 1988 and
1994. Since that time, adult arrests remained generally stable, although they fell slightly—by 5
percent to 891,437—in 2001. Rising adult arrests may well have contributed to Texas’s
incarceration growth through 1994. Disaggregating arrests by offense type helps to clarify the
impact of arrests on prison admissions. Therefore, we also examine trends for violent, property,
driving-while-intoxicated (DWI), and drug offenses separately.30
Figure 1.10 shows that, between 1988 and 2001, violent crime arrests rose (from 67,275
to 110,840)—even after 1992 when reported violent crimes fell.31 The influence of these factors
on the prison population is unclear, however. While violent crime fell, arrests for violent offenses
grew until 1996 and then they largely stabilized. Violent offenders rose as a share of the
admissions population until 1994, when they began to fall as a share (figure 1.11). Arrests for
29
drug offenses also rose in this period, and drug offenders accounted for a growing share of the
admissions population.32 Mirroring property crime trends, arrests for property crimes generally
fell in this period.33 Likewise, property offenders’ share of admissions tended to shrink during
this time.
In 1987, Texas created 45 regional narcotics task forces (RNTFs), primarily to decrease
drug crimes in rural areas, but they have operated in urban areas as well.34 These decentralized
task forces may have contributed to the increase in drug arrests since a key measure of these
units’ success is the number of drug arrests they make.35 From fiscal years 1997 to 2003 (the
years for which data were available), the RNTFs arrested between 12,000 and 19,500 individuals
annually, accounting for a significant share (10 to 21 percent) of all drug crime arrests during
these years.
Increased arrests only contribute to an increase in the prison population if the arrests lead
to felony convictions and sentences to prison or state jail. In Texas, the total number of felony
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
7
Figure 1.11. TDCJ admissions by offense type as a percentage of all admissions, FY 1988 to FY 2002
50%
Property
40%
30%
Drug
Violent
20%
Other
10%
DWI
0%
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Criminal Justice Policy Council data.
convictions rose from 73,049 in 1988 to 89,245 in 1991. They then fell until 1996, when they
totaled 74,882. The number of convictions then rose again, reaching 90,669 in 2002. Notably,
during this time, conviction rates had actually fallen. Between 1988 and 1994, conviction rates
fell from 80 to 70 percent and then stabilized.36 A rise in arrests likely contributed to the growth
in the prison population in the first half of the 1990s while rising felony convictions contributed
to the growth in the second half.
Parole and Probation Revocation
Another potential cause of increased admissions is an increase in parole and probation
revocations. In Texas, however, revocations contributed minimally to the increase in TDCJ
admissions during this time.37 A parole or probation revocation may be the result of the
commission of a new crime or a technical violation of a condition of supervision (such as the
requirement to report to the supervising officer). Revocations accounted for a significant but
stable share of all TDCJ admissions from 1988 to 2002, only rising slightly (by 4 percent)
between 1991 and 1994 (figure 1.12).
8
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
Figure 1.12. Revocations as a share of TDCJ admissions, FY 1988 to FY 2002
80%
70%
All revocations
60%
50%
40%
Felony probation revocations only
30%
20%
Parole and mandatory supervision revocations only
10%
0%
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Criminal Justice Policy Council data.
Increased Lengths of Stay
The main cause of Texas’s incarceration growth is the rising length of prisoners’ stays in TDCJ
facilities, or the actual time served in these facilities.38 Time served for Texas prisoners has
increased fairly consistently in the past 14 years (refer back to figure 1.5). Prisoners released in
1988 served an average of 1.8 years; by 2002, they served an average of 3.3 years—an increase of
83 percent. The most marked increase in time served occurred between 1992 and 1995, which
coincided with the largest increase in the TDCJ prison population (from 51,592 to 127,559).
Comparing Texas’s experience with national trends, Texas prisoners’ time served grew 57
percent between 1990 and 2000, outpacing the 32 percent growth in time served by state and
federal prisoners across the nation during that time.39 In 1990, Texas prisoners served 1.9 years
on average, approximating the time served by state prisoners throughout the nation (1.8 years).
But by 2000, Texas prisoners were spending 37 percent more time incarcerated than the average
state prisoner nationwide (3.2 years versus 2.3 years). This section reviews the impacts of
sentence length, percentage of sentence served, parole, and good-behavior credits on Texas
prisoners’ lengths of stay from 1988 to 2002.
Sentence Length
Increases in the length of sentences can cause prison populations to grow by increasing the time
state prisoners are incarcerated.40 In Texas, the sentence length for most state prisoners increased
during much of the past decade and therefore may have contributed to the increase in time served.
For Texas prisoners released between 1988 and 1994, the length of sentence grew
substantially—by 46 percent—from 7.7 to 11.2 years (figure 1.13). This increase in sentence
length applied to all prisoner types: nonviolent offenders’ sentences grew the most—by 60
percent (from 6.8 to 10.9 years); aggravated crime offenders’ sentences grew by 34 percent (from
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
9
10.7 to 14.3 years); and violent crime offenders’ sentences grew by 12 percent (from 11.3 to 12.6
years).41 Between 1994 and 1998, the average sentence length dropped dramatically from 11.2 to
6.1 years, and from 1998 to 2002 it remained relatively stable.42
The state jail felon category took effect in fiscal year 1995 (this population will be
discussed further throughout the text; also see “State Jail Confinees” sidebar in the introduction
for further explanation). This legislation lowered the maximum sentence length for nonviolent
Class A misdemeanors and third-degree felons from 25 years to 2 years; prison administrators in
Texas refer to these prisoners as confinees. Prior to this time, all prisoners’ sentences were a
minimum of 2 years; after this time, confinees (the new category of felons) could receive
sentences of as little as 75 days for a new crime and no more than 2 years for any offense.
Figure 1.13. Sentence length (in years) of all TDCJ releases, FY 1988 to FY 2002
12
All TDCJ releases
10
State prisoners only
8
6
4
2
0
1988
Confinees only
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Criminal Justice Policy Council data.
Between 1996 (the year that data are first available) and 2002, confinees received, on
average, 11-month sentences. Alternatively, state prisoners’ sentences grew longer during this
time, from 7.3 to 9.5 years, since the less serious offenders with shorter sentences removed from
the state prison population. Since state prisoners make up the majority (two-thirds) of all released
prisoners, most prisoners’ sentence lengths increased during this time.
Rising sentence lengths, however, may not translate into increased time served (time
spent incarcerated) if prisoners are, for example, being released early to parole. For confinees,
sentence length directly impacts time served since they are ineligible for parole and mandatory
supervision (and thus early release).43 All but the two percent of confinees who are released to
shock probation serve their full term.44 Although state prisoners are eligible for parole and
mandatory supervision, the changes in their sentence lengths likely affected their time served. For
example, as the average sentence length for state prisoners grew by 23 percent from 1988 to 2002
(from 7.7 years to 9.5 years), the average time served grew by 85 percent (from 1.8 to 3.3 years).
(Please refer back to figure 1.5.) Clearly, changes in sentence length cannot explain the total
10
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
increase in time served. We will now examine other factors that may have affected state
prisoners’ time served.
Percentage of Sentence Served
Policies and practices for both parole and good-conduct time can affect the percentage of a
sentence that a prisoner serves (discussed below). In addition, in the past decade, a number of
states across the nation, including Texas, have passed legislation requiring state prisoners to serve
longer portions of their sentences.45 By making confinees ineligible for parole or mandatory
supervision, the Texas legislature ensured that nearly all of these prisoners would serve 100
percent of their sentences. However, Texas still requires state prisoners (the majority of prisoners)
to serve at least 25 to 50 percent of their sentences—substantially less than the 85 percent
minimum requirement of nearly all other states.46
In 1987, new legislation required that Texas prisoners’ time served and credits for good
behavior sum to at least 25 percent of their sentences before they were eligible for parole or
release to mandatory supervision.47 Since then, the legislature has increased the percentage to 33
percent, or to 50 percent for some state prisoners who committed serious violent and aggravated
offenses; the most significant legislative increases in the percentage of time served occurred in
1987 and 1993. Although Texas increased this percentage requirement for some prisoners, Texas
remains only one of three states that allow prisoners to become eligible for parole after serving,
with good-time credits, less than 85 percent of their sentences—the percentage recommended by
the federal government.48 Confinees are subject to distinct requirements. Since their creation in
1993, confinees have been ineligible for parole or good-time credits (i.e., release to mandatory
supervision), and all but 2 percent, who are released at a judge’s discretion through shock
probation, serve 100 percent of their sentences.
Trends in the percentage of the sentence that prisoners are serving reflect these legislative
changes (figure 1.14).49 State prisoners released in 1993 served 27 percent of their sentences; by
2002, they were serving 58 percent. The percentage of sentence served approximately doubled for
all offender types, including nonviolent offenders.50 Today, more releasees are also serving 100
percent of their sentences (i.e., were “discharged”), receiving no early release through parole,
good-behavior credits, or shock probation. In 1988, less than 1 percent of all prisoners were
discharged; by 2002, 45 percent were. Although the proportion of discharged state prisoners has
increased, the primary reason for the marked rise in discharges is due to the growth in the number
of confinee releases. In 1988, the confinee category did not exist; by 2002, confinees constituted
35 percent of all TDCJ releases, and 98 percent of them were discharged while only 16 percent of
state prisoners were.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
11
Figure 1.14. Percentage of sentence served, FY 1988 to FY 2002
100%
Confinees only
90%
80%
All TDCJ releases
70%
60%
50%
State prisoners only
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Criminal Justice Policy Council data.
Figure 1.15. Parole approval rates, FY 1988 to FY 2002
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Criminal Justice Policy Council data.
Parole Eligibility and Approvals
Falling parole approvals were the driving force behind the rise in prisoners’ time served.51 Two
main factors contributed to this decline. First, the percentage of releases who were eligible for
parole dropped from nearly 100 percent in 1988 to approximately 63 percent in 2002.52
Consequently, the number of prisoners considered for parole grew by just 24 percent while the
prison population grew by 227 percent and releases grew by 73 percent. Second, for those
prisoners considered for parole, parole approval rates plummeted from 57 percent to 25 percent
during this time (figure 1.15). The result: the number of prisoners released to parole decreased by
45 percent, from 28,090 in 1988 to 15,426 in 2002.
The creation of the state jail felon category—a growing percentage of prisoners who are
ineligible for parole—in 1993 likely reduced the proportion of prisoners considered for parole.
12
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
Other factors also may have contributed to this result, such as resource constraints, an
increasingly punitive political climate, changes in parole board members, and the increased
housing capacity of TDCJ.
Good-Conduct Time
Eligible state prisoners can receive credit for good behavior (i.e., good-conduct time) for
participating in programs and avoiding disciplinary reports; confinees cannot receive goodconduct time.53 These credits can affect a state prisoner’s length of stay in two ways. First, as
previously mentioned, some state prisoners are eligible for parole when their good-conduct time
and time served sum to a percentage of their sentence. (Good-behavior credits are not considered
when determining the parole eligibility date for state prisoners convicted of some aggravated
offenses.54) Second, eligible state prisoners can still be released early through mandatory
supervision (further described in chapters 4 and 5), which may occur when the prisoner’s goodbehavior credits and time served sum to his sentence.55 The amount of good-conduct time a state
prisoner can receive is not set, but CJPC staff reported that most state prisoners receiving goodconduct time receive one day of credit for each day served.
Although good-conduct time directly affects the time served by prisoners, changes in
good-conduct time over the past decade did not likely contribute to the increase in prisoners’ time
served, since more prisoners are released today to mandatory supervision than were a decade ago.
In 1988, 22 percent of all TDCJ releasees received mandatory supervision; in 2002, 29 percent
did (figure 1.16).
Figure 1.16. Parole and mandatory supervision releases as percentage of all releases, FY 1988 to FY
2002
100%
90%
Parole
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
Mandatory supervision
20%
10%
0%
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Criminal Justice Policy Council data.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
13
SUMMARY
In summary, the state of Texas has experienced significant growth in its prison
population and corrections spending. The prison population increase can be attributed to rising
arrests, more convictions, longer sentences for most prisoners (state prisoners), falling parole
approvals, and legislation requiring prisoners to serve longer portions of their sentences. From a
reentry perspective, we can expect to observe two different types of released prisoners: (1) state
prisoners who have spent longer periods of time in prison for drug, property, and violent crimes
and (2) confinees who have spent shorter periods of time in state jails for drug and property
crimes. The former group will likely have served long enough to have access to a variety of
prison programs, including educational, vocational, employment, and substance abuse treatment
programs. However, they will have been out of the workforce and disengaged from the
community for a longer time, making the reentry adjustment a challenging one. Conversely, the
latter group will have been released after serving very short sentences, making the disruption of
incarceration less pronounced. However, these prisoners may have had less access to the
programs and resources that TDCJ has to offer. These differences in reentry needs and challenges
have implications for program structures, release policies, and postrelease supervision practices,
topics that will be addressed in the chapters that follow.
14
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
CHAPTER 2
Who Is Returning Home?
A
s admissions to Texas prisons and state jails have increased over time, so too has the
number of prisoners being released from these facilities. To better understand prisoner
reentry in the state, it is important to examine the characteristics of the population being
released from TDCJ each year. This section describes the 2001 release cohort, including basic
demographics, reasons for incarceration, time served, transition to release, recidivism rates, and
health challenges.56
DEMOGRAPHICS
In calendar year 2001, TDCJ released 55,183 men Figure 2.1. TDCJ releasees by gender, 2001
and women from its custody to the streets.57 Nearly
Female
14%
all (99 percent, or 54,645) remained in Texas
The
demographic
following
release.58
characteristics of those released to Texas are
Male
86%
similar to those of the state’s standing prison
population. The majority (86 percent) of the
release population is male (figure 2.1). Nearly one
in five prisoners are married. Almost half (44
percent) are non-Hispanic black, a third (32 Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2001 TDCJ data.
percent) are non-Hispanic white, and a quarter (24
Figure 2.2. TDCJ releasees by race/ethnicity,
percent) are Hispanic (figure 2.2).
2001
As figure 2.3 shows, nearly three-quarters
Non-Hispanic
Black
Hispanic
44%
(70 percent) of all releasees were less than 40 years
24%
old at release. Most were in their mid-30s at the
time of their release, with the median age at release
being 34. A little more than one-third (36 percent)
Non-Hispanic
were less than 30 years old at release. The
Other/
White
unknown
32%
< 1%
youngest prisoner was 17 years old, and the oldest
Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2001 TDCJ data.
was 97.
Note:
Figures total more than 100 percent due to
rounding.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
15
Figure 2.3. TDCJ releasees by age, 2001
40%
34%
33%
35%
30%
25%
2 3%
20%
15%
10%
6%
5%
3%
1%
0%
17 – 19
2 0 – 29
3 0 –3 9
4 0 –4 9
5 0– 5 9
6 0 a nd o ve r
Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2001 TDCJ data.
Figure 2.4. TDCJ releasees by primary conviction offense, 2001
60%
54%
50%
42%
39%
40%
32%
33%
29%
30%
24%
20%
10%
17%
8%
5%
1%
0%
1% 2%
4%
5%
3%
0%
0%
DWI
Drug
All TDCJ releases
Property
Violent
State prisoners
Weapons
Other
Confinees
Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2001 TDCJ data.
Note: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.
WHY THEY WERE INCARCERATED
As described in the first chapter of this report, an increase in convictions for drug
offenses has contributed to the growth in Texas’s prison population. And, of prisoners released to
Texas in 2001, drug offenses accounted for the greatest share of all convictions (figure 2.4). One
in every 2.5 releasees (39 percent) had been incarcerated for either possessing or selling drugs; 1
in 3 releasees (33 percent) had been incarcerated for property offenses; and 1 in 6 releasees (17
percent) had been incarcerated for violent offenses. The remaining releasees had been
incarcerated for such offenses as driving while intoxicated and weapons offenses.
Of those released to Texas, one-third (18,107) had been serving time for a state jail,
felony offense. See the sidebar, “Highlights of Differences between Confinees and State
16
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
Prisoners,” for a discussion of differences between these two populations, including differences in
the offense types committed.
Highlights of Differences between Confinees and State Prisoners Released in 2001
• Twice as many confinee releasees as state prisoner releasees were women (21 versus 10
percent).
• Confinee releasees were slightly less likely than state prisoners to be white (30 versus 34
percent) or Hispanic (21 versus 25 percent) and more likely than state prisoners to be black
(49 versus 41 percent).
• The median age of confinee releasees was slightly younger than that of state prisoners (31
versus 35).
• Compared with state prisoners, confinee releasees were significantly more likely to have
been serving time for drug offenses (54 versus 32 percent), much more likely to have been
serving time for property offenses (42 versus 29 percent), and significantly less likely to
have been serving time for violent offenses (less than 1 versus 24 percent).
• On average, confinees were released after serving 11 months (100 percent of their
sentences). In contrast, state prisoners were released after serving an average of 4.6 years
(47 percent of the average sentence length of 9.7 years).
HOW LONG THEY WERE INCARCERATED
As discussed above, the average time served of Texas prisoners released in 2001 was 3.4 years
and the average sentence length was 6.8 years.59 Slightly more than half (53 percent) of the Texas
prisoners released in 2001 served two years or less in prison, 22 percent served between two and
five years, and a quarter served five years or more. (For longitudinal trends on time served, refer
back to figure 1.5.)
TRANSITION TO RELEASE
In 2001, the vast majority (85 percent) of prisoners released by TDCJ were released from a
minimum custody level (figure 2.5). Confinees were only slightly more likely than state prisoners
to be released from minimum custody (88 versus 83 percent). Consequently, most TDCJ
prisoners are released with the benefit of a transition from a higher to a lower security level where
they are able to participate in more programs and assume greater freedoms and responsibility,
which may help prepare them for their release.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
17
Figure 2.5. Texas releasees by custody at release, 2001
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
All releases
Confinees
Other
Intellectual
impaiment,
mental health,
or medical
facility
Prerelease
facility
Therapeutic
community
Administrative
segregation
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
0%
State prisoners
Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2001 TDCJ data.
RECIDIVISM AND THE REVOLVING DOOR
Cycling in and out of prison is common among released state prisoners, whether they are returned
to prison while under parole supervision or not. A recently released study by the Bureau of
Justice Statistics that tracked state prisoners released from prisons in 15 states in 1994 found that
within three years of their release, nearly 52 percent were back in prison for new prison sentences
or technical violations of the conditions of their release.60
The criminal histories of the released state prisoners in Texas demonstrate slightly lower
patterns of reincarceration: within three years of release, 41 percent of state prisoners released in
1994 returned to a state prison or state jail facility.61 By 1998, the percentage of state prisoners
who had been reincarcerated within three years had dropped to 31 percent—the lowest recidivism
rate in a decade. To compare reincarceration rates of state prisoners with confinees, we must
examine two-year reincarceration rates since those are the only data available for confinees. Of
the confinees released in 1998, 19 percent were reincarcerated in two years; state prisoners
released in 1998 were only slightly more likely (21 percent) to be reincarcerated within this
period.62 Notably, confinees released to supervision are significantly more likely to be
reincarcerated than those who are simply discharged. For example, 17 percent of confinees
released in 1998 without supervision were reincarcerated—less than half the rate at which
confinees released to supervision were (39 percent).63 Data comparing the recidivism rates of
state prisoners released to supervision with those not released to supervision are unavailable.
Also, one in four Texas prisoners released in 2001 had been incarcerated as a parole,
mandatory supervision, or shock probation violator. The percentage of prisoner releasees who, at
incarceration, had violated felony probation is not available—although the percentage is expected
to be high given felony probation revocation trends (see figure 1.12).
18
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH PROBLEMS
State prisoners nationwide suffer from a range of mental and physical health problems. In 1997,
nearly one-third (31 percent) of state prisoners nationally reported having a learning or speech
disability, a hearing or vision problem, or a mental or physical condition.64 The physical health
challenges, along with the related fiscal costs, are rising due to the changing demographics of the
prison population in Texas. The CJPC found a substantial increase since 1994 in the elderly
prison population (ages 55 and older)—a population that tends to experience health problems at a
higher rate than the average prisoner.65 In fiscal year 2000, the cost of managed health care in
Texas reached over $267 million (11 percent of TDCJ’s $2.4 billion budget).66
A specific area of heightened concern is HIV/AIDS in prison populations. Nationally, in
2000, 2 percent of state prisoners were HIV positive, and the overall rate of confirmed AIDS
cases among the nation’s prison population was four times the rate in the U.S. general population
(0.52 percent versus 0.13 percent).67 In Texas, 1.9 percent of prisoners were HIV positive in
2000.68 The reentry challenge of HIV/AIDS is particularly significant considering the findings of
a 2000 study conducted by Dr. William O’Brien, a researcher at the University of Texas Medical
Branch in Galveston (UTMB).69 This study found that TDCJ prisoners were developing
resistance to an HIV/AIDS medication as a result of inconsistent administration of the drug.70
While the authors were unable to obtain detailed statistics on other health characteristics of Texas
prisoners,71 it stands to reason that the state’s soon-to-be-released state prisoners have rates of
other physical conditions similar to those of prisoners across the country.72
CJPC studies have shown that mental health issues pose an increasingly significant
challenge to TDCJ. Between 1988 and 1998, the total number of TDCJ state prisoners receiving
mental health care (whether on inpatient or outpatient caseloads) increased by 399 percent (from
3,148 to 15,716). At the same time, the number of psychiatric beds available increased by 157
percent (from 823 to 2,116), and the overall prison population increased by 262 percent (from
39,664 to 143,803).73 The vast majority of prisoners with mental health issues were served in
outpatient facilities.74 In fiscal year 2000, the cost of psychiatric care totaled $43 million (nearly 2
percent of TDCJ’s budget).75
Mental health issues are also prevalent in the parole and probation population. In 2001,
575,548 individuals were under direct parole or probation supervision in Texas; of these
individuals, an estimated 16 percent (91,603) suffered from a mental illness.76 Twenty-seven
percent (or 29,948 of 110,692) of all direct parolees are estimated to be mentally ill and 13
percent (or 61,655 of 464,856) of direct probationers are. At the same time, 28 percent (25,562)
of mentally ill probationers and parolees were treated: 19 percent received services from the
state’s Mental Health and Mental Retardation programs and 9 percent received services from the
criminal justice system mental health services.
Thus, mental and physical health issues experienced by Texas state prisoners present yet
another reentry challenge and public health opportunity.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
19
20
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
CHAPTER 3
How Are Prisoners Prepared for Reentry?
H
istorically, prison programs have played an
important role in American corrections.
Whether prison programs do, in fact,
contribute to positive postrelease outcomes (e.g.,
reduced recidivism and long-term employment) has been
the subject of much research and dispute. In the 1970s,
studies suggested that prison programs did not work.77
By contrast, more recent research and meta-analyses
have found favorable results, with treatment groups
across programs consistently achieving at least modest
reductions in recidivism versus comparison groups,
particularly when coupled with programs in the
TDCJ Placement Process
With the exception of those prisoners
sentenced to a Substance Abuse
Felony Punishment facility, prisoners
receive an Individualized Treatment
Plan at admission. This plan outlines
the programs appropriate for the
individual. When determining priority
for
placement
in
programs,
preference is given to prisoners
approved for parole and required to
complete a treatment program. Other
prisoners are categorized based on
projected release date, age, custody
level, level of need, whether the
program is offered in the prisoner's
institution, and the availability of
space in the program.
community.78
Despite the potential benefits of facility-based
programs, participation in prison programs nationwide is
on the decline. The number of soon-to-be-released state
and federal prisoners who reported participating in
vocational programs dropped from 31 percent in 1991 to
27 percent in 1997.79 Similarly, the number who reported participating in education programs
dropped from 43 to 35 percent in that same period.80 The number of prisoners who reported
receiving formal substance abuse treatment also dropped, from 25 percent in 1991 to 10 percent
in 1997.81 These numbers are discouraging given the suggested benefit of in-prison programs and
the increasing number of prisoners who are in need of training and treatment.
OVERVIEW OF TDCJ PROGRAMS
TDCJ prisoners have access to a range of programs and services—including education programs,
vocational training, substance abuse treatment, behavior-modification programs, and mental
health counseling—designed to help them reintegrate into communities and reconnect with their
families.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
21
Figure 3.1 shows that over $241 million was devoted to in-prison programs in Texas in
fiscal year 2000.82 These funds come from the budgets of TDCJ and the Windham School District
(WSD), TDCJ’s primary educational and vocational program provider. The vast majority of these
funds are devoted to educational, work, and substance abuse treatment programs. Seven percent
of TDCJ’s budget (nearly $165 million) is devoted to institutional programs. Of TDCJ’s budget,
3.2 percent is devoted to correctional industries (work programs); 2.8 percent is allocated to inprison substance abuse treatment; 0.2 percent is devoted to academic and educational programs;
0.1 percent is for Project RIO, a vocational skill program; and 0.6 percent is devoted to other
institutional inmate treatment services such as sex offender treatment programs. To assist with the
transition from corrections to the community, TDCJ also provides some programs to prisoners in
the community following release (both residential and nonresidential), but funding totals for these
programs were unavailable. In addition, WSD reports spending over $76.4 million for educational
and academic programs in fiscal year 2000.83 Of these funds, 83 percent was devoted to education
programs in state prisons, 12 percent was devoted to education programs in state jails, 4 percent
was devoted to continuing education programs, and 0.3 percent was devoted to education
programs in parole facilities.84
Figure 3.1. Key TDCJ prisoner program categories by budget, FY 2000
90,000,000
$80,341,752
80,000,000
$77,060,512
$67,398,904
70,000,000
60,000,000
50,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
$13,449,987
10,000,000
$3,132,433
0
Education/academic
Correctional
industries (work)
Substance abuse
treatment
Other inmate
treatment services
Project RIO
(employment
readiness)
Source: Urban Institute analysis of TDCJ, Texas Board of Pardons and Parole, and Criminal Justice Policy Council data.
In fiscal year 2004, however, TDCJ’s budget for programs—specifically substance abuse
treatment programs, academic programs, and chaplaincy—dropped 16 percent due to Texas’s
budget deficit.85 Overall, TDCJ’s budget fell 5 percent from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2004.86
As a result, Texas prisoners face fewer opportunities to participate in programs today than in
recent years. Further, prisoners may have fewer incentives today to participate in programs than
they did a decade ago, since parole approvals, which include program participation as a
consideration factor, are less likely now than they were a decade ago.
22
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
While no historical data exist on program
participation in Texas, and current data are sometimes
incomplete, we are able to report some estimates of
prisoner participation in programs. WSD reports that
83,337 prisoners (42 percent of possible participants in
fiscal year 2002) participated in its basic educational
programs in fiscal year 2002.87 In addition, 12,463
prisoners (6 percent of possible participants in fiscal year
2002) participated in WSD’s college-level courses and
About Program Participation
Data
Unless otherwise noted, individual
program participation and admission
rates are unique. Because prisoners
may have participated in multiple
programs, we are unable to combine
or average rates across program
types with any accuracy. For
example, combining participation
rates across programs in the
Windham School District would
count more than once prisoners who
participated in more than one
program and overestimate the
number of individuals who accessed
education programs.
vocational classes. In 2002, at least 9,000 prisoners (5
percent of potential participants in fiscal year 2002) were
admitted to substance abuse programs prior to release,
and at least 8,700 prisoners could have participated in
postrelease inpatient substance abuse programs (not
including those prisoners who received field referral
services). However, many more prisoners may have
participated in substance abuse programs since most of
TDCJ’s substance abuse programs do not publish
participation rates. Also, 85 percent of prisoners participate in work assignments at any given
time, and 69,506 prisoners (35 percent of potential participants in fiscal year 2002) participated in
Project RIO, a prerelease and postrelease work-readiness program (figure 3.2).
Figure 3.2 provides a summary of the main TDCJ programs and services offered to
prisoners incarcerated in TDCJ facilities—both in traditional correctional institutions and in
community-based facilities.88 We provide a more in-depth description of these programs below.
While we include descriptions of programs administered by TDCJ Parole Division, we do not do
so for those programs administered by TDCJ Community Justice Assistance Division (the
probation department) because so few TDCJ prisoners (approximately 2 percent) are released to
probation.
EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Data on the nation’s prison populations suggest that the
education level of state prisoners is well below that of the
general population.89 While 18 percent of the general
population had not completed high school or received an
equivalency degree in 1997, 40 percent of prisoners in state
or federal prison had not done so.90 In Texas, 43 percent of
state prisoners admitted in 2000 did not possess a high school
diploma or general equivalency diploma (GED).91 Even more
Education Programs
Basic Education
College Coursework
Community
Opportunities
Programs in Education
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
23
Figure 3.2. Main TDCJ programs and services, FY 2002
Program
Educationc
Basic Education
College Coursework
Community Opportunities
Programs in Education
Employment
Career and Technology
Education Training
Division of Continuing
Education Vocational Classes
Eligible population
Where administered
FY 2002 admissions
Capacity
State prisoners and confinees
State prisoners and confinees
Parolees or MS releaseesb
Correctional facility
Correctional facility
Community
76,825
7,997
3,380
Not availablea
Not availablea
Not availablea
State prisoners and confinees
Correctional facility
16,100c
Not availablea
State prisoners and confinees
Correctional facility
4,466c
Not availablea
Project RIO
Manufacturing and Logistics
Job Training and Work
Programs
State prisoners
State prisoners
Correctional facility
Correctional facility
69,506c
Not available
Not available
Not available
Agribusiness and Land
Minerals Work
Lockhart Work Program
Barriers to Employment
Halfway Houses
Project RIO
Work Release Program
Substance abuse treatment
In-Prison Therapeutic
Community
Prerelease Substance Abuse
Program
Prerelease Therapeutic
Community
Substance Abuse Felony
Punishment Facility
Field Referral
Inpatient aftercare programs
(Continuum of Care)
State prisoners
Correctional facility
2,200c
Not available
State prisoners
Confinees
Parolees or MS releases
State prisoners
Parolees or MS releaseesb
Correctional facility
Correctional facility
Community
Community
Community
c
1,000
Not available
4,719c
Not available
Not available
1,000
Not available
1,199
Not available
Not available
State prisoners
Correctional facility
1,076
800
State prisoners
Correctional facility
1,352
1,000
State prisoners
Correctional facility
814
600
Confinees
Correctional facility
5,849
4,500
Parolees or MS releases
Parolees, MS releases,
probationers from IPTC & SAFP
Correctional facility
Community
7,280d
8,732d
Not available
2,123
Community
7,000d
Not available
Correctional facility
Correctional facility
Correctional facility
Correctional facility
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
989
2,032
Not Available
Not available
Correctional facility
299
426
Correctional facility
153
200
Correctional facility
Correctional facility
Correctional facility
23,980
10,401
4,377e
Not available
Not available
Not available
Correctional facility
Correctional facility
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Outpatient aftercare programs
Parolees, MS releases,
probationers from IPTC & SAFP
(Continuum of Care)
Mental health care
Mentally Retarded Offender
State prisoners and confinees
Inpatient psychiatric facilities
State prisoners and confinees
Hospital facilities
State prisoners and confinees
Outpatient care
State prisoners and confinees
Sex offender treatment
Sex offender treatment
State prisoners
Faith-based initiative
InnerChange Freedom
State prisoners
Initiative
Behavior adjustment programs
CHANGES
State prisoners and confinees
Cognitive Intervention
State prisoners and confinees
Family Forward
Confinees
Women and children's programs
Love Me Tender Program
State prisoners and confinees
Girl Scouts Behind Bars
Confinees
Source: Urban Institute analysis of TDCJ, Texas Board of Pardons and Parole, and CJPC data.
a
The total capacity of all WSD vocational and educational programs is approximately 30,000. Since some inmates
participate in multiple programs, the participation totals listed above may double count inmates admitted; as a result,
the total number of education participants listed above will not sum to the total number of unique inmates
participating in these programs that is listed in the chapter.
b
MS signifies mandatory supervision release.
c
Program participants.
d
Estimated from program capacity and average length of stay.
e
FY 2003.
24
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
striking is the fact that, in 2002, 31 percent of state prisoners in Texas prisons could be defined as
functionally illiterate.92
Since 1969, WSD has served as the primary administrator of educational and vocational
programs for TDCJ. WSD operates as an independent school district under the dual supervision
of TDCJ and the Texas Education Authority. In the 2001 to 2002 school year, WSD had 83,337
participants in WSD educational or vocational programs (42) percent of potential participants).93
Overall, WSD has the capacity to serve approximately 30,000 prisoners at any given time through
its 88 schools in TDCJ facilities.94 WSD also reports that 5,347 GEDs and 509 advanced degrees
were conferred to TDCJ prisoners in 2002 (figure 3.3).
On average, prisoners receive the equivalent of one school year (604 hours) of
educational programming during their stay in prison; placement preference is given to those
prisoners required to participate in programs prior to parole release, those nearing their release,
those who are young, and those with the greatest need for education programs.95 The following is
a brief description of the education programs offered through the TDCJ.96
Administered in Correctional Facilities
Basic Education. WSD’s Division of Instruction offers basic academic programs from
primary to secondary schooling and includes literacy programs, English as a second
language classes, and special education classes for prisoners with special needs.
Among these programs, the literacy program is the most widely accessed. In the 2001
to 2002 school year, 52,639 (26 percent of potential participants in fiscal year 2002)
enrolled in the literacy program. This program targets adults who are considered
functionally illiterate or who are pursuing a GED. Most basic education programs
require a commitment of approximately 15 hours per week of class time.
College Coursework. The Division of Continuing Education offers college-level
coursework through partnerships with 16 two-year and 3 four-year colleges and
universities. Prisoners who participate receive college credit for their courses.
Approximately 4 percent of the possible participants took advantage of higher-level
academic courses during the 2001 to 2002 school year. WSD does not fund collegelevel courses. Outside sources and the prisoners themselves fund these courses. In
2002, 509 college degrees (associate’s, bachelor’s, and master’s degrees) were
awarded.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
25
Figure 3.3. Academic degrees awarded to TDCJ prisoners by WSD, FY 2002
6,000
5,347
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
445
57
7
Bachelor's
degrees
Master's degrees
0
GEDs
Associate
degrees
Source: Urban Institute analysis of TDCJ data.
Administered in the Community
Community Opportunities Programs in Education (COPE) Program.97 Upon
release, parolees with low academic achievement levels or who wish to earn their GED
are eligible to participate in the Parole Division’s COPE Program. A substantial
proportion of parolees meet this qualification: Of the 13,200 prisoners released to
parole in fiscal year 2002, 44 percent had not earned a high school diploma or GED.
By the end of fiscal year 2002, 3,380 offenders (26
percent of the prisoners released to parole in that
Employment-Readiness
fiscal year), had enrolled in this program.98
Programs
EMPLOYMENT-READINESS PROGRAMS
The difficulties prisoners face within the labor market, before
incarceration, and after release have been well documented.99
Prisoners often enter prison with poor educational
backgrounds and unstable work histories. While incarcerated,
they lose the opportunity for valuable work experience and
may sever interpersonal connections that could provide links
to employment opportunities.100 These obstacles to finding
legitimate employment add to the reintegration challenges
facing returning state prisoners.
Employment-readiness programs are programs
designed to help prisoners overcome the barriers to
employment and prepare them for reentry into the workforce.
WSD and TDCJ’s Manufacturing and Logistics Division
26
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
Career and Technology
Education
Division of Continuing
Education Vocational
Classes
Project RIO
Manufacturing and
Logistics Job Training
Agribusiness and Land
Minerals
Lockhart Work Program
Barriers to Employment
Halfway House
Programs
Work Release Program
offer several in-prison occupational training and career development programs. As of fiscal year
2002, more than 90,000 prisoners were enrolled in WSD employment programs (including
69,506 reported Project RIO participants), and more than 7,300 were involved in employment
programs through the Manufacturing and Logistics Division.101 Thus, at least 97,300 prisoners
could have participated in these programs during this time.102 WSD also reports that 13,118
vocational certificates were conferred to TDCJ prisoners in 2002 and that WSD students earned
2,731 industry certificates. A brief overview of some of the main TDCJ work programs follows.
Administered in Correctional Facilities 103
Career and Technology Education (CTE). CTE offers occupational training courses
to participating prisoners. While the program operates in most adult institutions, only 8
percent of potential participants in fiscal year 2002 participated in CTE programs.104
Courses are offered in 34 subject areas that range from electrical trades and plumbing
to graphic arts and information technology.105 The full training program entails 600
hours of coursework and provides entry-level industry training, while the short training
program (for prisoners with specific occupational needs or who will be released
shortly) entails 45 to 200 hours of coursework. CTE also offers an apprenticeship
program and on-the-job training.
Division of Continuing Education Vocational Classes. The Division of Continuing
Education offers prisoners vocational education classes to earn credits for college or
toward vocational certification. These classes are offered in 29 TDCJ units and cover
such topics as advanced horticulture, electronics, and masonry. But only 2 percent of
potential participants in fiscal year 2002 participated in vocational credit courses
through the continuing education program.
Project RIO (Re-Integration of Offenders). Project RIO is a prerelease and
postrelease program created in 1985 that works to reduce recidivism by connecting
prisoners to jobs. WSD administers the prerelease component of this program that
includes assisting prisoners to obtain the necessary documentation—such as social
security cards, birth certificates, and driver’s licenses—to secure employment. WSD
staff members also help participants develop a postrelease plan to find and secure
employment and refer them to appropriate in-prison education, vocational training, and
substance abuse programs. Of the 58,949 state prisoners and confinees released in
fiscal year 2002, nearly 35 percent of possible participants had developed plans to seek
services and employment after release through Project RIO.
Manufacturing and Logistics Job Training and Work Programs. TDCJ’s
Manufacturing and Logistics Division offers work programs and some on-the-job
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
27
training and certification to prisoners. The products manufactured by prisoners and
services are provided free-of-charge or at a reduced cost to the TDCJ and to other
public agencies. Prisoners can work in the division’s varied industries: movement of
freight, managing storage facilities, and management and maintenance of TDCJ’s
automobiles. Prisoners can also receive training and certification in Geographic
Information Systems, computer repair, and braille transcription through the
Manufacturing and Logistics Division; in 2002, 49 prisoners were certified in one of
these areas. In partnership with the Texas Correctional Industries, the division also
employs around 7,300 prisoners in 40 factories that manufacture a variety of products,
including mattresses, shoes, brooms, furniture, and steel products.
Agribusiness and Land Minerals. This division employs 2,200 offenders in
agriculturally based jobs throughout the state of Texas. Prisoners are employed in
various positions, including farming, tending livestock, and harvesting produce.
Lockhart Work Program. Located in a secure facility within the TDCJ prison
system, the Lockhart work program employs inmates in a variety of industries that
include manufacturing air conditioner parts, computer components, medical gowns,
and designer lenses and frames under the Private Sector/Prison Industries
Enhancement Program (PIE). This federally funded program excludes the industries
located at Lockhart from federal constraints placed on offender-made goods. In
addition, the PIE program stipulates that a portion of the income prisoners earn is
donated toward facility maintenance, victim restitution, and family support. Prisoners
are able to participate in much of the same programming offered in other prison
facilities, such as educational, vocational, and life skills programs. Lockhart prison has
a capacity of 1,000 men and women.
Barriers to Employment. This program, offered at the Joe Kegans State Jail in
Houston, offers transitional programming to help confinees reintegrate into the
community. Offenders that qualify for the program transfer to the Kegans facility prior
to release. There they are provided with prerelease counseling and services.
Specifically, the Barriers to Employment program, in partnership with Career and
Recovery Resources (a United Way Agency) offers career and employment readiness
counseling that teaches prisoners how to write a résumé, secure and maintain
employment, and utilize local resources to find employment.106
Administered in the Community
Halfway House Programs. There are currently seven halfway houses for parolees and
mandatory supervision releases across Texas, all of which are contracted to private
28
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
nonprofit or for-profit entities. In addition to providing shelter to just-released
prisoners, halfway houses often provide other transitional services, such as
employment counseling and referrals. Prisoners must remain on the property at all
times (unless reporting to their designated place of employment) and contribute a
portion of their earnings to the maintenance of the facility. Prisoners are also required
to remain in the halfway house facility until the proper authorities grant permission to
leave. In fiscal year 2002, these facilities had a capacity to house 1,199 parole and
mandatory supervision releasees at any given time.107 During this fiscal year, 4,719
parole and mandatory supervision releasees were released from these facilities.108
Work Release Program. Some Texas counties administer a work release program
offered to prisoners released to parole or mandatory supervision who are returning to
nonmetropolitan areas that may lack a halfway house program. Prisoners reside in
county jail facilities and follow similar rules to their counterparts in halfway house
programs. Local divisions of the TDCJ Parole Division administer this program.
Project RIO. The Texas Workforce Commission implements the community-based
component of Project RIO. Project RIO helps ex-prisoners complete their Individual
Strategy and Service Development Plan developed during their incarceration. Project
RIO staff offer job-search assistance, workshops on résumé building and interviewing,
work referrals, and job fairs. Project RIO staff also work to educate employers about
the referral process and its benefits; they also provide a financial incentive program for
employers who hire certain ex-prisoners.109
SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT PROGRAMS
The relationship between substance abuse and incarceration
has drawn the attention of national and state officials alike.
Studies have found that more than half of state prisoners
across the nation reported that they were under the influence
of drugs or alcohol at the time they committed the offense
that led to their imprisonment.110 Furthermore, 74 percent of
state prisoners nationwide who expected to be released in the
year 2000 reported a history of drug and/or alcohol abuse.111
The issues surrounding substance abuse in Texas
largely mirror those of the nation. A recent study found that
63 percent of state prisoners are substance users or
chemically dependent and that 39 percent of state prisoners
reported being intoxicated during the commission of their
crime.112 At the same time, 5 percent of potential prisoner
Substance Abuse
Treatment Programs
In-Prison Therapeutic
Community
Prerelease Substance
Abuse Program
Prerelease Therapeutic
Community
Substance Abuse
Felony Punishment
Facility
Aftercare Programs
Field Referral
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
29
participants are known to have been admitted to substance abuse programs in fiscal year 2002.
We expect that a significant number of prisoners have attended voluntary self-help programs such
as Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, counseling sessions, and Secular Organization
for Sobriety programs.113 However, the availability of these programs to prisoners depends on the
number of volunteers available at any given time. Participation rates for these programs are
unavailable.
Now we turn to a brief description of the TDCJ Programs and Services Division’s four
substance abuse programs. Together, these programs have a capacity to serve 6,900 prisoners at
any given time and are located in 19 of TDCJ’s 105 units. Combined, the four programs served 5
percent of potential participants in fiscal year 2002. Evaluations conducted by the Criminal
Justice Policy Council suggest that these models have positive effects on the prisoners they
serve.114 Below, we provide an overview of substance abuse programs and opportunities for
released prisoners to find substance use treatment once they return to the community.
Administered in Correctional Facilities
In-Prison Therapeutic Community Program (IPTC). IPTC is designed for paroleapproved state prisoners within 12 to 14 months of their release who suffer from
substance abuse. IPTC is mandatory for those selected by the parole board to
participate; these prisoners must complete the nine-month program as a condition of
release to parole. IPTC has a program capacity of 800 prisoners (500 male and 300
female) and admitted 1,076 offenders in fiscal year 2002. The Criminal Justice Policy
Council (CJPC) reports that within a sample population, the recidivism rates of state
prisoners who successfully completed IPTC are lower than for those who did not
complete IPTC. In 1994, CJPC reported that 63 percent of prisoners in the sample
studied completed both in-prison and postrelease treatment components of the IPTC
program. Following the implementation of several procedural changes, completion
rates have increased since this time.115
Pre-Release Substance Abuse Program (PRSAP). Operating since 1996, this
program follows a six-month curriculum that includes counseling, anger-management
training, life skills training, and drug and alcohol education. PRSAP works with 1,000
mandatory supervision and parole-approved prisoners who will be released to parole.
PRSAP admitted 1,352 prisoners in fiscal year 2002. According to a 2003 CJPC report,
within the sample studied, PRSAP reduced recidivism rates among participating
prisoners, particularly among those who were considered at high risk of recidivating.
The PRSAP program has the highest completion rate of all substance abuse programs;
85 percent of the sample population completed the six-month curriculum.
30
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
Pre-Release Therapeutic Community (PRTC). Established in 1997, the PRTC
program targets mandatory supervision or parole-approved state prisoners returning to
the Dallas area. The program curriculum includes six months of substance abuse
treatment, vocational and academic courses, and life skills training workshops. PRTC
has the capacity to serve 600 prisoners at any given time and served 814 prisoners in
fiscal year 2002. CJPC found that recidivism rates are generally lower for prisoners
who complete the entire PRTC program and found that 61 percent of participants do
so. According to CJPC, for the sample studied in 2003, factors unrelated to program
activities (namely staffing shortages and multiple program goals) may have lessened
PRTC’s effectiveness.
Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facilities (SAFP). Confinees, probationers,
and parolees with substance use issues may be sentenced directly to SAFPs. Offenders
sentenced to SAFP facilities serve six-month sentences in a SAFP facility, are required
to complete three months of treatment after release in an inpatient substance abuse
treatment facility, and are encouraged to participate in up to nine months of outpatient
care.116 While incarcerated in a SAFP facility, offenders are under 24-hour supervision
and are provided various types of substance abuse treatment education, cognitive
intervention courses, life skills training, and other positive components geared toward
successful reintegration and a crime-free, drug-free lifestyle. At the end of fiscal year
2002, SAFP had a 4,500-bed capacity with 500 beds reserved for parolees; the
program admitted 5,849 offenders in fiscal year 2002. According to a CJPC evaluation,
the recidivism rates for a sample of SAFP participants and nonparticipants are very
similar over time (32 percent for participants and 30 percent for the comparison
group); however, they also reported that the recidivism rate for prisoners who complete
all components of the two-year program drops to 5 percent. Additionally, “CJPC
estimates that for every 100 prisoners placed in the SAFP program the state avoids
$770,000 in incarceration costs.”117 While 68 percent of the sample prison population
completed one month of the three-month outpatient treatment program, only 44 percent
completed all in-prison and postrelease program components.118 CJPC also reported a
disproportionate number of revocations due to technical violations of parole or
probation among SAFP participants; violators accounted for 55 percent of SAFP
recidivists.
Administered in the Community
Studies have shown that substance abuse treatment programs are most effective when they
encompass an in-prison treatment component as well as an aftercare component.119 Following this
research, the community-based programs run by the Parole Division complement the variety of
in-prison programs provided by the Programs and Services Division.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
31
Aftercare Programs (Continuum of Care Programs). Parolees and mandatory
supervision releasees who participated in the In-Prison Therapeutic Community
(IPTC) program and probationers who were incarcerated in a Substance Abuse Felony
Punishment (SAFP) facility participate in this program. IPTC and SAFP programs
require participants to seek three to nine months of substance abuse treatment
following release. TDCJ administers both the inpatient and outpatient care. The
inpatient aftercare program has a program capacity of 2,183 and serves approximately
8,732 prisoners per year.120 The outpatient substance abuse program, coordinated by
the Programs and Services Division, serves approximately 7,000 parolees and
probationers per year.121
Field Referral. For parolees and mandatory supervision releasees at risk of substance
abuse who did not participate in IPTC or SAFP, the Division of Parole provides the
Field Referral program. After release, a field officer assesses a prisoner’s substance
abuse treatment needs and refers him or her to the appropriate treatment facility or
program. Since 52 percent of all releasees were released to parole or mandatory
supervision, many TDCJ ex-prisoners have access to this service. The field referral
program has access to 395 inpatient beds, which serve approximately 1,580 prisoners
per year.122 The outpatient program serves approximately 5,700 parole or mandatory
supervision releasees per year.123
MENTAL HEALTH CARE
The United States Department of Justice reports that almost 16
percent of state prisoners nationwide suffer from mental
illness.124 Although the percentage of Texas prisoners receiving
mental health care in 1998 (slightly under 11 percent) was
below the national average, the number of prisoners under
mental health supervision in Texas had increased fivefold in 10
years. From 1988 to 1998, the number of Texas prisoners under
mental health supervision grew from 3,148 to 15,716.125
Mental Health Care
Options
Hospitals
Outpatient Care
Basic Mental Health
Care
Inpatient Psychiatric
Units
Mentally Retarded
Hospitals. TDCJ prisoners have access to two secure
Offender Program
hospitals—the Young Medical Facility and Hospital
Galveston. The University of Texas Medical Branch
manages both facilities. Both hospitals provide mental health services and ambulatory,
surgical, and specialty care for prisoners. At the end of fiscal year 2001, there were 459
prisoners incarcerated in TDCJ hospital facilities.126
32
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
Outpatient Care. Most prisoners with mental health challenges received outpatient
care. In 1988, 2,589 TDCJ prisoners (82 percent of the mental health population)
received outpatient care. A decade later, in 1998, 13,691 TDCJ prisoners (87 percent of
the mental health population) received outpatient care.127
Basic Mental Health Care. Every Texas correctional institution provides prisoners
with basic mental health care, which can include diagnosis, provision of psychiatric
medication, and counseling.128 Each facility has either mental health professionals on
staff or contracts with outside entities to provide psychological and psychiatric testing,
examinations, and diagnostic services.
Inpatient Psychiatric Units. Prisoners with significant mental health challenges may
receive more intensive care in one of four inpatient psychiatric units. Prisoners with
serious psychiatric needs are placed in psychiatric units in three correctional facilities
(Jester IV, Montford, and Skyview), and the Program for Aggressive Mentally Ill
Offenders (PAMIO) operates in a fourth unit (Clements). PAMIO is a 450-bed,
inpatient psychiatric facility for administrative segregation prisoners.129 These four
units can serve up to 2,032 state prisoners and had a population of 1,932 at the end of
fiscal year 2002.130
Mentally Retarded Offender Program. Prisoners with mental retardation and
developmental challenges are placed in the Mentally Retarded Offender Program,
which is located in two facilities and has the capacity to serve 989 prisoners at a
time.131 At the end of fiscal year 2002, this program held 897 prisoners.
SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT PROGRAM
The Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP) is an 18-month rehabilitation program for
prisoners who are serving sentences for sex crimes. Currently, SOTP is offered at three TDCJ
facilities. In fiscal year 2002, SOTP admitted 744 prisoners. The program has a capacity to serve
426 prisoners at one time.132 The program targets sex offenders within two years of their release
date and consists of four phases of treatment: (1) in-prison therapy, (2) off-site work programs,
(3) community-based transition programs, and (4) aftercare for offenders released to postrelease
supervision (though few sex offenders are discharged with postrelease supervision
requirements).133 For those prisoners who complete all program components, the program is
extremely successful: CJPC reports that these prisoners have a 38 percent lower arrest rate and a
39 percent lower reincarceration rate than the comparison group.134 CJPC reports that
approximately a quarter (22 percent in fiscal year 1997 and 25 percent in fiscal year 1999)
complete the 18-month program.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
33
FAITH-BASED INITIATIVE
In 1997, the Prison Fellowship, a national Christian outreach organization, initiated the
InnerChange Freedom Initiative (IFI), a faith-based intervention program. To prepare prisoners
for reentry, IFI teaches academic, vocational, and life skills classes from a biblical and moral
perspective. While participation is voluntary, the only prisoners who are eligible are those who
(1) are within 18 to 24 months of release, (2) are returning to Harris County and other adjacent
counties, (3) are functionally literate (educational achievement score above 6.0), (4) have no
enemies at the facility, and (5) are willing to accept Christian teachings. The IFI program can
serve up to 200 prisoners and served 153 prisoners in fiscal year 2002. A 2003 CJPC evaluation
found that prisoners who completed the program’s prerelease and postrelease components had a
recidivism rate of 8 percent, substantially less than the comparison group’s 20 percent recidivism
rate; the study also found that 42 percent of participants complete the program.135 A preliminary
evaluation of the InnerChange Freedom Initiative conducted by the University of Pennsylvania
also noted that graduates of this program were 50 percent less likely to be rearrested than a
matched comparison group and 60 percent less likely to be reincarcerated.136
BEHAVIOR ADJUSTMENT PROGRAMS
To prepare prisoners for reintegration, WSD also offers
programs that teach social skills and community responsibility.
Some examples of these programs are listed below; all of them
are administered in TDCJ correctional facilities.137
Behavior Adjustment
Programs
Changing Habits and
Achieving New Goals
to Empower Success
Changing Habits and Achieving New Goals to
Cognitive Intervention
Empower Success (CHANGES). This 60-day
Parenting
Windham School District program teaches prisoners
within two years of release life skills for successful
reintegration, including family and parenting skills, civic responsibilities, health skills,
labor market skills, money management, and social skills. In 2002, 23,980 prisoners
participated in the CHANGES program.
Cognitive Intervention. This program, which was developed with assistance from the
National Institute of Corrections and implemented in 60 of 114 Texas prisons, aims to
build prisoners’ problem-solving and social skills. This program is specifically
designed for and targets prisoners with disciplinary issues and served 10,401 prisoners
in fiscal year 2002.
Parenting. This program offers confinees classes to help them develop healthy family
relationships using a curriculum developed by Family Forward®, a statewide
organization whose mission is to strengthen families and promote family stability.138
34
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
State jail facilities that offer WSD classes also provide confinees the opportunity to
participate in parenting classes. In fiscal year 2003, 4,377 prisoners participated in
parenting classes.
WOMEN’S PROGRAMS
As of August 31, 2002, 7 percent of the TDCJ prison and
state jail population were women.139 TDCJ provides programs
exclusively for women incarcerated in TDCJ facilities to
address the issues unique to this population.
Women’s Programs
Love Me Tender
Girl Scouts Behind Bars
Plane State Jail Wrap-
Around Program
Love Me Tender. This program, which the
University of Texas Medical Branch administers,
The Empowerment
Project
aims to increase bonding time for newborns and
their mothers. For those not in the program,
healthy mothers and their newborns are generally separated within six hours of birth.
Girl Scouts Behind Bars. TDCJ’s Programs and Services Division also coordinates
this program in two facilities within the TDCJ—Hilltop and Plane State Jail. The
program’s main goal is to allow mothers and their children to remain in contact during
incarceration. Regular Girl Scout meetings held in the community are combined with
meetings in prison.
Plane State Jail Wrap-Around Program. TDCJ’s Programs and Services Division
also coordinates the Plane State Jail Wrap-Around Program, which offers transitional
services to female confinees returning to Harris County. The division has partnered
with various agencies in Houston committed to meeting the needs of these women,
particularly in the areas of education, job/vocational training, mental health issues,
substance abuse issues, housing needs (several halfway houses offer placement), and
access to health care.
The Empowerment Project. Launched in fiscal year 2003 at the Woodman State Jail,
this program is a pilot program for women who have been sexually abused or were
victims of domestic violence. Participants receive counseling and education during
their incarceration and referrals to groups within their community upon release. The
Austin-based Texas Council of Family Violence administers this program.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
35
36
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
CHAPTER 4
How Are Texas Prisoners Released?
T
he growth in the TDCJ prison population over the past 14 years has led to an increase in
the number of prisoner releases.140 As figure 4.1 illustrates, in 2002 TDCJ prisons and
state jails released 58,949 prisoners—73 percent more than the number of prisoners
released in 1988 (34,410). These prisoners, like those across the nation, are released either
through a discretionary or a nondiscretionary process. With nondiscretionary release, state
statutes and the prisoner’s court-ordered sentence determine the prisoner’s release date at the time
of sentencing. With discretionary release, a parole board, judge, or other authority reviews the
prisoner’s case, once the prisoner has served a statutorily required portion of his sentence, to
decide whether to release the prisoner earlier than the date specified by the court.141
Figure 4.1. TDCJ releases, FY 1988 to FY 2002
70,000
60,000
50,000
All TDCJ releases
40,000
30,000
State prisoner releases only
20,000
10,000
0
1988
Confinee releases only
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Criminal Justice Policy Council data.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
37
Figure 4.2. TDCJ discretionary and nondiscretionary releases as a percentage of all releases, FY 1988
to FY 2002
100%
90%
80%
Discretionary releases
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
Nondiscretionary releases
10%
0%
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Criminal Justice Policy Council data.
Between 1988 and 2002, the percentage of TDCJ releases approved for discretionary
release dropped from 75 to 38 percent. The proportion of discretionary releases began to fall after
1992 (figure 4.2) when, most notably, parole approval rates were falling dramatically (refer back
to figure 1.15). The creation of the state jail felon category in 1994 also contributed to the decline
in discretionary releases since those prisoners are ineligible for the most common forms of
discretionary release (parole and discretionary mandatory supervision). Thus, while the majority
(60 percent) of state prisoners are released through the approval of a discretionary body, only 1
percent of confinees are released through discretionary mechanisms (figure 4.3).142
Figure 4.3. State prisoner and confinee discretionary releases as a percentage of all releases, FY
1988 to FY 2002
100%
90%
80%
State prisoners
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1988
Confinees
1990
1992
1994
1996
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Criminal Justice Policy Council data.
38
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
1998
2000
2002
Accordingly, nondiscretionary releases accounted for more than half (62 percent) of all
TDCJ releases in 2002, up from 25 percent in 1988. These prisoners completed their entire
sentence length in prison or state jail, many without review by a parole board or a judge. The use
of discretionary release has important implications for reentry. Under discretionary release, a
panel reviews a prisoner’s case during his incarceration; they consider his institutional conduct,
criminal history, and postrelease plans, such as living arrangements and employment.143 This
review can provide an important incentive for prisoners to comply with institutional rules,
participate in programs, and develop a strategy for reentry. Also, while some nondiscretionary
release mechanisms do not entail postrelease supervision requirements, discretionary release
always entails these requirements. Figure 4.4 summarizes the key characteristics of each release
mechanism.
A CLOSER LOOK AT DISCRETIONARY RELEASE
TDCJ prisoners can be released through one of three
discretionary
means:
parole,
discretionary
mandatory supervision (DMS), and shock probation.
Prisoners released through parole and DMS are
subject to postrelease supervision under parole.
Prisoners released through shock probation are
subject to postrelease supervision under probation.
A full description of shock probation is not included
in the text below because it applies to so few
prisoners (approximately 1 percent of all releases in
2002). However, shock probation is counted in this
chapter’s graphs to provide a complete picture of
discretionary release practices.
All state prisoners except those incarcerated
for certain violent crimes, particularly aggravated
violent crimes such as first- or second-degree
assaults, are eligible for discretionary release
DMS vs. RMS
Prisoners sentenced before September 1,
1996, may be eligible for release to
mandatory supervision (RMS). RMSeligible
prisoners
are
released
automatically once their time served and
good-time credits sum to their sentence
length. Prisoners sentenced on or after
September 1, 1996, are ineligible for
RMS but may be eligible for discretionary
mandatory supervision (DMS). To be
released through DMS, however, the
Board of Pardons and Paroles must
review a prisoner’s case and award
approval.
Approved
prisoners
are
released to DMS once their time served
and good-time credits sum to their
sentence length.
through any of these mechanisms. In contrast,
confinees are ineligible for either parole or DMS. Accordingly, as the confinee population has
grown (since first implemented in 1994), discretionary releases have fallen.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
39
Figure 4.4. Summary of release types
Type of release
Authority
Time of
decision
Eligible
population
Postrelease
supervision
Percent of
releases in
1988
Percent of
releases in
2002
Discretionary
Discretionary
mandatory
supervision (DMS)
Board of
Pardons and
Paroles
Board of
Pardons and
Paroles
Shock probation
Judge
During
incarceration
State
prisoners;
confinees
Probation
1.5 (est.)
1 (est.)
Direct discharge
Judge
Set at
sentencing
State
prisoners;
confinees
None
0.4
45
Release to
mandatory
supervision (RMS)
Board of
Pardons and
Paroles
Set at
sentencing
State
prisoners
Parole
23
14
Probation
Not Available
1 (est.)
Data not
available for
state
prisoners
Probation
Did not yet
exist
1 (est.)
Parole
During
incarceration
State
prisoners
Parole
75
23
During
incarceration
State
prisoners
Parole
Did not yet
exist
15
Nondiscretionary
Split
sentence/probation
modification
Judge
Set at
sentencing
State
prisoners;
confinees
Boot camp
Judge
Set at
sentencing
State
prisoners
Parole
The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles can expedite a state
Ineligible for Parole
prisoner’s release date by authorizing parole (confinees and
• Confinees
prisoners sentenced to death are ineligible for parole). Parole
• Prisoners sentenced to
allows a state prisoner to serve the remainder of his sentence in the
death144
community under supervision while complying with specified
conditions of release.145 A prisoner is eligible for parole once his time served and credits for good
behavior sum to a certain percentage of his sentence as specified in Texas statute.146 This
percentage increases for more serious offenses, and ranges from 25 to 50 percent.147
State prisoners are informed of their parole-eligibility date upon admission to TDCJ.
Several months prior to a state prisoner’s parole-eligibility date, a parole officer meets with the
state prisoner to review his or her case. The officer records a summary of the case, including his
or her criminal and social background, physical and mental health, and institutional behavior. By
the prisoner’s parole-eligibility date, the Board of Pardons and Paroles reviews the case summary
and approves parole if the prisoner is likely to comply with release conditions and is not likely to
pose a threat to public safety. Prior to making this decision, board members can request that the
prisoner appear before them to answer questions, but they rarely do so given the volume of
40
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
prisoners considered for parole and discretionary mandatory supervision (nearly 8,000 per month
in 2002).148
The Board sets the prisoner’s release date and conditions of release, discussed further in
the next chapter, when they approve parole.149 The Board can release the prisoner immediately to
parole, set a later parole-release date, or require that the prisoner first participate in an
institutional rehabilitation program for 3 to 18 months. At the time of release, TDCJ provides
parolees with a copy of their release conditions, including the name of their parole officer and the
time and location of their first meeting with the officer. At the initial meeting, the parole officer
reviews parolees’ release conditions with them. Parolees serve the remainder of their sentence
(the sentence length minus the time served in prison) in the community under parole supervision.
For prisoners denied parole, the Board reviews their cases within the next five years.
The number and share of prisoners released to parole has fallen dramatically over the past
14 years. In 1988, 28,090 prisoners were paroled (75 percent of all releases) and, in 2002, 15,426
prisoners were paroled (23 percent of all releases).150 See chapter 1 for a discussion of potential
explanations for this trend.
In 2002, members of the Board of Pardons and Paroles were only slightly more likely to
parole prisoners incarcerated for nonviolent offenses than those incarcerated for violent offenses.
The Criminal Justice Policy Council reports the following approval rates for each offense type:
•
Nonviolent
30 percent (11,187 of 37,841)
•
Aggravated violent
22 percent (1,586 of 7,130)
•
Nonaggravated violent
21 percent (2,186 of 10,262)
•
Nonaggravated sex offense
8 percent (201 of 2,496)
•
Aggravated sex offense
3 percent (86 of 3,146)
Notably, although prisoners incarcerated for nonviolent crimes were only slightly more likely to
be approved for parole than other prisoners, they still served a significantly shorter portion of
their sentence on average (31 percent compared to between 50 and 60 percent for most other
offense types).
Discretionary Mandatory Supervision
The Board of Pardons and Paroles can also expedite state
prisoners’ release by authorizing discretionary mandatory
supervision (DMS) release. DMS allows eligible state
Ineligible for DMS
•
Confinees
•
State prisoners incarcerated
for some aggravated or
violent crimes
prisoners to be released when their time served and their
good-time credits sum to their sentence length.151 If
approved, state prisoners then serve the remainder of their • State prisoners sentenced
before September 1, 1996
sentence in the community under parole supervision. DMS
was implemented in 1996; prior to this time, all releases to mandatory supervision were automatic
(nondiscretionary).
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
41
Fewer TDCJ prisoners are eligible for DMS than for parole.152 As with parole, no
confinees or death-sentenced state prisoners are eligible for DMS. Unlike parole, however, state
prisoners who have committed particular aggravated or violent offenses (such as any crime
involving a deadly weapon, first-degree burglary, and first- and second-degree aggravated
assaults) are ineligible for DMS, as are state prisoners sentenced prior to September 1, 1996.153
The DMS review process is entirely paper-based, meaning eligible prisoners never appear before
the Board for hearings. TDCJ forwards prisoners’ case files to the Board, and the Board notifies
TDCJ of its decision. Although the Board can require DMS-approved state prisoners to
participate in an institutional program before approving DMS release, they rarely do so.154 The
Board reviews denied cases within one year of their initial decision.
The Board sets the conditions of release for those prisoners approved for DMS, and the
prisoner is given a printed copy of these conditions at release. This document specifies all release
conditions, the name of their parole officer, and the time and location of their first meeting with
the officer. At this meeting, the parole officer reviews their release conditions with them. The
DMS releasee is supervised under parole for the remainder of his sentence (the sentence length
minus the time served in prison).
The share of prisoners released to DMS has grown between Nearly half (49 percent)
1998 (when data are first available) and 2002. Three percent of all of nonviolent offenders
TDCJ prisoners released in 1988 were released through DMS; by considered for parole
2002, 15 percent were released through DMS. As more state and DMS were not
prisoners have become eligible for DMS release (i.e., they were approved.
sentenced on or after September 1, 1996), the proportion of TDCJ prisoners released through
DMS has increased. As this growth continues, discretionary releases will, in turn, increase as they
have since 1998 when DMS data first became available and were added into the discretionary
release pool.155
DMS approval rates are nearly double parole approval rates. From 1998 (when data are
first available) to 2002, the approval rate for DMS considerations remained between 46 and 61
percent annually. Compared to parole, the Board has significantly higher DMS approval rates for
nonviolent offenders than for violent offenders. The following is a summary of the 2002 approval
rates for each offense type:
•
Nonviolent
61 percent (8,272 of 13,574)
•
Aggravated violent
0 percent (0 of 9)
•
Nonaggravated violent
37 percent (646 of 1,754)
•
Nonaggravated sex offense
14 percent (24 of 169)
•
Aggravated sex offense
4 percent (3 of 71)
Nonviolent state prisoners approved for DMS served half (49 percent) of their sentences
while other state prisoners approved for DMS served between 53 and 66 percent of their
sentences.
42
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
A CLOSER LOOK AT NONDISCRETIONARY RELEASE
All TDCJ prisoners not eligible or not approved for discretionary release are released
nondiscretionarily through one of five means: direct discharge, release to mandatory supervision,
split sentence, probation modification, or boot camp. Some state prisoners (see below for further
detail) and all confinees are ineligible for mandatory supervision and boot camps. All but those
prisoners released through direct discharge are subject to postrelease supervision. A full
description of split sentence, probation modification, and boot camp is not included in this
discussion because they apply to so few prisoners (approximately 2 percent of all releases).
However, they are counted in this chapter’s graphs to capture nondiscretionary release trends.156
A short overview of direct discharge and release to mandatory supervision follows.
Direct Discharge
Prisoners released through direct discharge serve the full term of their
Eligibility for Direct
Discharge
court-ordered sentence—without reductions in their term for good
behavior—and are released to the community without supervision. All prisoners eligible for
Over the past 14 years, direct discharges rose as a proportion of all release are eligible for
TDCJ releases: in 1988, 0.4 percent of all TDCJ prisoners were direct direct discharge.
discharges, while nearly half (45 percent) of all releases were direct discharges in 2002. The vast
majority of direct discharges are confinees. Nearly 100 percent of confinees are released this way,
compared with 16 percent of state prisoners (2002).157
Release to Mandatory Supervision
All state prisoners who were sentenced before September 1, 1996, but
Ineligible for RMS
not sentenced to death are released automatically through release to • State prisoners
mandatory supervision (RMS) when their time served plus their
sentenced on or
good-time credits sum to their sentence length. State prisoners receive
after September 1,
1996
good-time credits through program participation and by avoiding
disciplinary infractions. Many state prisoners receive one day of • Confinees
good-time credit for each day served, but the total credits received can be adjusted on a case-bycase basis. The Board of Pardons and Paroles sets the release conditions prior to the prisoner’s
release under mandatory supervision, and the prisoner receives a copy of these conditions at
release. The mandatory supervision releasee is supervised under parole for the remainder of his
sentence, which equals the sentence length minus the time served in prison.
Mandatory supervision releases have shrunk over the past 14 years. In 1988, 23 percent
of all TDCJ prisoners were released through mandatory supervision; by 2002, just 14 percent
were. In the future, the number of mandatory supervision releases will continue to decrease as the
number of prisoners sentenced after September 1, 1996, increases.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
43
44
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
CHAPTER 5
How Are Texas Prisoners Supervised upon
Release?
I
n 2002, slightly more than half (55 percent) of released
prisoners were subject to some period of postrelease
supervision under either parole or probation, a drop
from 99.6 percent in 1988 and substantially lower than the
national average of 77 percent (figure 5.1).158 In 2002,
almost half (45 percent) of TDCJ prisoners were released
following the expiration of their sentences and were not
subject to any release conditions or any form of postrelease
Note on Language
In this chapter, prisoners released
through mandatory supervision or
discretionary mandatory supervision are referred to as parolees
because they are supervised by
the Parole Division following their
release and are subject to the
same requirements as parolees.
supervision. These prisoners were under no legal obligation
to abide by release conditions, such as having a job,
participating in drug or alcohol treatment, or having prearranged housing plans.
When disaggregating post-release supervision trends by prisoner type, significant
differences emerge. Although the percentage of state prisoners released to supervision has
declined over the past 14 years, the overwhelming majority of state prisoners continue to be
released to supervision. In 1988, 99.6 percent of state prisoners were released to supervision; 84
Figure 5.1. Percentage of all TDCJ releases released to supervision, FY 1988 to FY 2002
100%
90%
80%
70%
All releases to supervision
Releases to parole/
mandatory supervision only
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
Releases to probation only
10%
0%
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
Source: Urban Institute analysis of the Criminal Justice Policy Council data.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
45
Figure 5.2. Percentage of all released state prisoners and confinees released to supervision, FY 1988
to FY 2002
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1988
State prisoners
Confinees
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
Source: Urban Institute analysis of the Criminal Justice Policy Council data.
percent were released to supervision in 2002 (figure 5.2). At the same time, the percentage of
confinees released to supervision has decreased dramatically since fiscal year 1996, when data are
first available. In 1996, 39 percent of all confinees were released to supervision; by 2002, 3
percent were released to supervision. The primary reason for this decline is that judges began to
administer fewer sentences that required probation supervision following release.159
The total number of TDCJ prisoners released to parole supervision as a percentage of all
TDCJ releases has dropped substantially over the past 14 years: in 1988, 97 percent (33,267) of
all TDCJ prisoners were released to parole supervision; by 2002, 52 percent (31,193) were
released as such.160 As a result, the number of people under the Parole Division’s supervision
grew more slowly than the number of TDCJ releases grew—by 50 percent compared to 73
percent.
Prisoners can also be released to supervision via probation. The total percentage of all
TDCJ prisoners released to probation was, on average, 3.8 percent between 1988 and 2002.
Because so few prisoners are released to probation, the rest of this section focuses on parole.
CASELOADS
Texas’s active parole population increased most dramatically from 1988 to 2002 (by 50 percent,
from 52,047 to 78,160) and then largely stabilized (figure 5.3).161 Parole officers’ caseloads
dropped dramatically during the past 12 years. In 1990, the average caseload was 124 parolees;
but by April 2002, the average was 64 regular supervision parolees.162
46
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
Figure 5.3. Active parole population in Texas, FY 1988 to FY 2002
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
Source: Urban Institute analysis of the Criminal Justice Policy Council data.
CONDITIONS OF RELEASE
Postrelease supervision always involves a set of release conditions—requirements that the
prisoner is obligated to fulfill as a condition of his or her release to the community. Some release
conditions are standard components of supervision while others are tailored to address a
particular offender’s needs. Failing to fulfill all release conditions can, at a minimum, lead to
sanctions and can, at a maximum, lead to supervision revocation and, consequently,
reincarceration.
The Board of Pardons and Paroles sets the conditions of release for prisoners released
through parole, release to mandatory supervision, or discretionary mandatory supervision; and
TDCJ’s Parole Division supervises releasees through district parole officers. These groups are
subject to similar rules, regulations, and release conditions after release. Consequently, this
chapter refers to releases to mandatory supervision and discretionary mandatory supervision
releases as parolees. A typical parolee is required to (1) report to the supervising parole officer at
specified times and locations, (2) comply with the law, (3) secure the supervising parole officer’s
written permission before changing residence, (4) avoid owning or distributing a firearm, (5)
avoid contact with persons of criminal background, (6) obtain the parole officer’s written
permission to act as an “informer” for any law enforcement agency, (7) pay monthly
administrative and supervision fees to the Parole Division, (8) pay any outstanding legal fees, and
(9) comply with any special conditions imposed by board members. Parolees are given $50 and a
bus ticket at the time of their release and, as an incentive for contacting the supervising parole
officer, are awarded another $50 once they report to their parole officers.163 Special conditions of
release may include residency in community-based housing, sex offender stipulations, drug
testing, program participation, counseling, or payment of restitution. Programs may include
substance abuse treatment, sex offender treatment, education, cognitive restructuring, anger
management, family and children enhancement services, and employment training and services.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
47
The special condition requiring the state prisoner to reside in supervised communitybased housing provides an extra period of transition for state prisoners identified as posing a
higher risk and/or possessing greater needs than the average releasee. These programs allow the
state prisoner to transition back into freedom with more intense supervision and assistance within
a structured environment. Community-based housing can provide the state prisoner the
opportunity to find employment and secure housing before being released directly to the street.
Toward this end, the Board may require the prisoner to reside in either a pre-parole transfer
facility (PPT) or a halfway house.
TDCJ administers PPTs, which are community-based, prerelease residential programs
that include counseling, education classes, vocational training, and other programs and services.
As of August 31, 2002, these facilities had a maximum capacity of 2,800 and were approximately
three-quarters full (figure 5.4).164 Of the 31,193 prisoners released from TDCJ custody to parole
in 2002, 4,665 (15 percent) were released from PPTs.165 TDCJ’s Parole Division also manages
halfway houses, which are community-based programs that focus on reintegrating parolees into
the community prior to their release from TDCJ custody or upon special request by a parole
officer. At the end of fiscal year 2002, the Parole Division held 1,199 beds in nine halfway houses
under contract.166 And, in fiscal year 2002, 4,719 parolees were released from halfway houses.167
Figure 5.4. Texas parole facilities, capacity, and usage, FY 2002
Facility type
Pre-parole transfer facility
Halfway house
Total
Capacity
Total served
2,800
1,199
3,999
4,665
4,719
9,384
Source: Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Parole Division.
In fulfilling their release conditions, parolees paid nearly $9 million in fees to the Parole
Division in fiscal year 2003.168 Three-quarters of these funds were used toward the cost of
supervision, one-quarter was applied to the Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund, and less than 1
percent was used for the Sexual Assault Program Collections. On average, parolees are required
to pay $10 per month toward the cost of supervision, crime victims’ compensation, and sexual
assault programs.169
INTENSITY OF SUPERVISION
The intensity of a prisoner’s postrelease supervision depends on the estimated risk that the
prisoner poses to public safety given his or her background, reentry challenges, and other
individual characteristics. In short, the greater the risk an offender poses, the greater the intensity
of supervision the prisoner receives. To determine a prisoner’s risk, parole officers use
standardized assessment tools.170 According to the parolee’s risk level, the Board of Pardons and
Paroles assigns the parolee to one of seven levels of supervision: quarterly reporting, minimum,
48
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
medium, maximum, intensive, super-intensive, or specialized.171 For all levels of supervision
except quarterly reporting, the parole officer must contact a person with knowledge of the parolee
and confirm the parolee’s employment, compliance with specified release conditions, residence
within 30 days of a move, and program participation. The minimum level of supervision requires
that the parolee contact the parole officer once a month, and the maximum requires that he or she
do so four times a month. Most parolees are subject to the medium level of supervision, which
requires that the parolee meet the parole officer in the office once each month. It also requires that
the parole officer meet the parolee at home or in the community once every two months, validate
employment and counseling once per month, and validate the parolee’s new address within 30
days of any move.
REVOCATION
While postrelease supervision may aid in the reintegration process, the increased surveillance
raises the likelihood that ex-prisoners will be reincarcerated for either committing a new crime (a
new crime violation) or failing to comply with their release conditions (a technical violation).
Between 1988 and 1993, a growing parole population and a rising parole revocation rate led
revocations in Texas to more than double, rising from 11,084 to 24,250. After 1993, however, the
parole population and revocation rates fell until sentences to prison for parole revocations had
dropped to 10,666 in 2002, slightly less than the total in 1988. In 1999, parole revocations
accounted for a relatively small proportion (18 percent) of admissions in Texas when compared
with the national average of 35 percent (figure 5.5).172 In 1999, 20 percent of parole and
mandatory supervision revocations were due to technical violations, and the remainder was due to
new crimes. Parole Division staff report that typical technical violations involve failure to report
to the parole officer and failure to obtain permission to change residences.
Through the revocation process, if a parolee fails to comply with minor rules, the Board
can choose to hold a hearing or administer a minor sanction, such as writing a letter of
admonition to the parolee. If a parolee fails to comply with major requirements or commits a new
Figure 5.5. Parole and mandatory supervision revocations as a percentage of all TDCJ admissions, FY
1988 to FY 2002
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
Source: Urban Institute analysis of the TDCJ and Criminal Justice Policy Council data.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
49
offense, the Board can have local law enforcement issue a warrant for his or her arrest (referred to
in Texas as a “blue warrant”).173 Following arrest, the ex-prisoner is held in county jail until
interviewed by a parole officer. Prior to 1998, a parolee arrested under a blue warrant could be
held in the county jail for up to seven months prior to the disposition of his or her case. In 1998,
legislation took effect that reduced the maximum time that the parolee could remain in county jail
to two months.174 Following implementation of this legislation, CJPC found that the number of
parolees with blue warrants held in county jails dropped by 41 percent, from approximately 3,700
in the month immediately preceding implementation of this change to approximately 2,200 seven
months after its implementation.
In fiscal year 1999, CJPC found that 26 percent (or 27,238) of all parolees had revocation
hearings.175 In most (66 percent) hearings, the Board of Pardons and Paroles either found the
parolee or mandatory supervision releasee not guilty or rendered punishments that did not involve
revocation.
When parole is revoked for a new crime or a technical offense, the parolee returns to state
prison and serves the remainder of his or her sentence. The time served under community
supervision does not count toward the prisoner’s sentence unless he or she (1) meets the
qualifications described in House Bill 1649 (prisoners who committed serious violent offenses are
often ineligible) and (2) has served at least half of the sentence (in prison and under supervision)
prior to revocation.176 The Board can also choose to allow the violator to remain in the
community under supervision or transfer him to either an Intermediate Sanction Facility (ISF) or
a Substance Abuse Felony Punishment facility (SAFP). An ISF is a correctional facility in which
violators are incarcerated for a brief time (up to 90 days), and participants may take part in
community service restitution, education, and life skills/cognitive training programs. SAFPs are
in-prison programs for which participants receive substance abuse treatment and counseling. As
of October 29, 2003, the total number of ISF and SAFP beds available to parolees was 2,117;
1,951 beds were occupied.177
50
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
CHAPTER 6
Where Do Released Prisoners Go?
T
he community context of prisoner reentry can have an important influence on postrelease
success or failure. It stands to reason that ex-prisoners returning to neighborhoods with
high unemployment rates, limited affordable housing options, and few services may be
more likely to relapse and recidivate. To understand the community context of reentry in
Texas, it is first necessary to examine the geographic distribution of released prisoners. This
chapter presents findings from a geographic analysis of ex-prisoners and examines this reentry
distribution in relation to the socioeconomic characteristics of areas with the highest percentage
of released prisoners in 2001 and the characteristics of prisoners returning to each area.
In calendar year 2001, 55,183 men and women were released from TDCJ to the
community.178 Virtually all (99 percent) of these prisoners returned to Texas neighborhoods, and
over half (58 percent) returned to 5 of Texas’s 254 counties (Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, Bexar, and
Travis) (figures 6.1 and 6.2). None of the remaining 249 counties in Texas received more than 2
percent of returning prisoners. Slightly more than one-quarter (26 percent, or 14,129) returned to
Harris County, which includes Houston. The next largest share (15 percent, or 7,971) returned to
Dallas County, which encompasses the city of Dallas. Close to 8 percent (4,097) of released
prisoners returned to Tarrant County, which comprises Fort Worth, and approximately 6 percent
(3,156) returned to Bexar County, which includes San Antonio. Finally, Travis County, which
includes Austin, received 4 percent (2,342) of returning prisoners. The geographic distribution of
prisoners released to Houston, the city to which the greatest share of prisoners return, is further
discussed in the next chapter.
Figure 6.1. Number and rate of prisoner releasees to Texas by county, 2001
N um ber of
returning prisoners
R ate per
1,000 residents
H arris C ounty
14,129
4.2
D allas C ounty
7,971
3.6
T arrant C ounty
4,097
2.8
B exar C ounty
3,156
2.3
T ravis C ounty
2,342
2.9
55,183
2.5
C ounty
S tatew ide R ate
Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2001 TDCJ data and U.S. Census Bureau Data.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
51
The geographic data revealed distinct trends of the characteristics of the prisoners
returning to each of these five counties. For example, more than half (58 percent) of prisoners
returning to Dallas County had been incarcerated for drug offenses, approximately one and a half
times higher than the statewide average of 39 percent. And nearly two-thirds (62 percent) of
prisoners returning to Bexar County had been incarcerated for violent offenses, over three and a
half times higher than the statewide average of 17 percent. Also, the percentage of female
prisoners released to Dallas County (26 percent) was nearly double the statewide average of 14
percent.
Although county information is available for 99 percent of all Texas releasees, zip code
information is only available for prisoners released to parole or mandatory supervision (42
percent of all Texas releasees). These prisoners are referred to as “supervised releasees” in the
text.179 For each county except Harris County, the greatest share of ex-prisoners return to the zip
code where the county’s halfway house for supervised releasees is located. For Harris County, the
zip code receiving the second largest share of ex-prisoners is the zip code where Harris County’s
halfway house for supervised releasees is situated. Notably, the impact of prisoner reentry on
communities with halfway houses may be different from those that receive ex-prisoners returning
to the community at large. Prisoners living in halfway houses, for example, receive a greater level
of supervision, structure, and support in their return. Also, prisoners in halfway houses may leave
the community once released from the halfway house, relocating to some other area of the city.
The following section notes the counties’ zip codes with halfway houses and highlights
differences between counties.
52
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
Figure 6.2. Percentage of prisoner releasees to Texas by county, 2001
Note: The total number of releasees to Texas is
54,645; 52, or 1 percent, are not shown on the map
due to incomplete addresses at the county level.
Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2001 TDCJ data.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
53
PRISONER REENTRY IN DALLAS COUNTY
Dallas County is the second most populous county in the state, with more than two million
residents. The median household income in Dallas County is $43,324, 9 percent higher than the
statewide median household income of $39,927. Thirteen percent of Dallas County residents live
below the federal poverty level, slightly lower than the statewide average of 15 percent. Dallas
County’s unemployment rate totals 4 percent, the same as the statewide average. Women with
children under 18 years of age head 9 percent of the households in Dallas County—
approximately equal to the statewide average of 8 percent.
Who Returned to Dallas County?
In 2001, 7,971 released prisoners (14.6 percent of all releases) returned to Dallas
County, at a rate of 3.6 prisoners per 1,000 residents.
Fifty-one percent (4,065) of Dallas County’s returning prisoners were released to
mandatory supervision (MS) or parole (figure 6.3). The largest share (10.4 percent, or
423) returned to zip code 75207, where the county’s halfway house for parolees,
mandatory supervision releasees, and probationers is located. At any given time, this
halfway house holds approximately 18 probationers and 182 parole and MS releasees; it
served approximately 960 individuals in 2003.180 The next largest share (9.4 percent, or
382) of parole and MS releases returned to zip code 75216.
Forty-seven percent (3,746) of Dallas County’s returning prisoners were unsupervised
upon release, and 2 percent (160) were released to shock probation (return zip codes
were unavailable for these groups).
Three-quarters (74 percent) of ex-prisoners returning to Dallas County in 2001 were
male, a significantly smaller percentage than releases across the state (86 percent).
The racial and ethnic distribution of prisoners returning to Dallas County differs greatly
from that of the county’s residents: Compared with residents, returning prisoners are
more than twice as likely to be non-Hispanic black (55 versus 20 percent), less likely to
be non-Hispanic white (26 versus 44 percent), and less likely to be Hispanic (17 versus
31 percent). The remaining 2 percent of ex-prisoners were of other or unknown races or
ethnicities. This distribution approximates that of released prisoners across Texas.
Compared with the statewide average, a significantly higher percentage of ex-prisoners
returning to Dallas County had been incarcerated for a drug offense (58 percent versus
39 percent). The next largest percentage had been incarcerated for property offenses.
Notably, less than 1 percent of prisoners going to Dallas County had been incarcerated
for violent offenses—a tiny fraction of the statewide average of 17 percent (figure 6.4).
54
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
Figure 6.3. Percentage of supervised releasees to Dallas County by zip code, 2001
Note: The total number of releasees to Dallas
County is 7,971; 3,905 or 49 percent are not
shown on the map due to incomplete addresses at
the zip code level.
Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2001 TDCJ data.
Figure 6.4. Offense types of Dallas County prisoner releasees and all Texas prisoner releasees, 2001
70%
60%
58%
50%
40%
39%
38%
33%
30%
20%
17%
10%
5%
1%
0%
Drug
Property
Violent
0%
DWI
0% 1%
Weapons
3% 4%
Other
Dallas County
All counties
Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2001 TDCJ data.
Note:
Figures total more than 100 percent due to rounding.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
55
PRISONER REENTRY IN TARRANT COUNTY
Tarrant County, which includes the city of Fort Worth, is home to nearly 1.5 million residents,
making it the third largest county in the state in population. Approximately 11 percent of its
residents live below the poverty level—lower than the state average of 15 percent—and its
median household income of $46,179 is 16 percent higher than the statewide median household
income of $39,927. The unemployment rate in Tarrant County and the percentage of femaleheaded households with children under 18 years of age is nearly equal to the state average of 4
and 8, respectively.
Who Returned to Tarrant County?
In 2001, 4,097 released prisoners (7.5 percent of all releases) returned to Tarrant County,
at a rate of 2.8 prisoners per 1,000 residents.
Sixty-one percent (2,499) of Tarrant County’s returning prisoners were released to MS
or parole (figure 6.5). The largest share (17.1 percent, or 427) returned to zip code
76107, where the county’s parole and MS halfway house is located. This halfway house
holds approximately 225 people at any time and served approximately 700 individuals in
2003.181 The next largest share (12.4 percent, or 310) returned to zip code 76119.
Thirty-eight percent (1,557) of Tarrant County’s returning prisoners were unsupervised
upon release and 1 percent (41) were released to shock probation (return zip codes were
unavailable for these groups).
The majority of these releasees were male (91 percent)—slightly higher than the
percentage of male prisoner releasees across the state (86 percent).
Most Tarrant County releasees were Hispanic (59 percent), a significantly higher
percentage than for releasees across Texas (24 percent) and for the Tarrant County
resident population (22 percent). One-quarter of prisoners returning to Tarrant County
were non-Hispanic white, compared with 32 percent of all prisoners returning to Texas
and 61 percent of Tarrant County residents. The percentage of Tarrant County releasees
who were non-Hispanic black (17 percent) is significantly lower than the percentage of
statewide releasees who were (44 percent).
Similar to the distribution among ex-prisoners across the state, one-third of those
returning to Tarrant County had been incarcerated for a drug offense, one-third had been
incarcerated for a property offense, and 17 percent had been incarcerated for a violent
offense (figure 6.6). However, twice as many prisoners released to Tarrant County had
been incarcerated for a driving while intoxicated offense as had been statewide (11
versus 5 percent).
56
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
Figure 6.5. Percentage of supervised releasees to Tarrant County by zip code, 2001
Note: The total number of releasees to Tarrant
County is 4,097; 1,611 or 39 percent are not
shown on the map due to incomplete addresses at
the zip code level.
Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2001 TDCJ data.
Figure 6.6. Offense types of Tarrant County prisoner releasees and all Texas prisoner releasees,
2001
70%
60%
50%
39%
40%
33%
33% 33%
30%
20%
17%17%
11%
10%
5%
2% 1%
4% 4%
0%
Drug
Property
Violent
DWI
Weapons
Other
Tarrant County
All counties
Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2001 TDCJ data.
Note:
Figures total more than 100 percent due to rounding.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
57
PRISONER REENTRY IN BEXAR COUNTY
Bexar County, which encompasses the city of San Antonio, has close to 1.4 million residents. The
median household income in the county is $38,328—close to the statewide median household
income of $39,927. Sixteen percent of Bexar County residents live below the poverty level,
approximating the statewide average of 15 percent. The unemployment rate in Bexar County (4
percent) equals the statewide average. Female-headed households account for 9 percent of all
households, compared with 8 percent across the state.
Who Returned to Bexar County?
In 2001, 3,156 released prisoners returned to Bexar County, at a rate of 2.3 prisoners per
1,000 residents.
Sixty percent (1,894) of Bexar County’s returning prisoners were released to MS or
parole (figure 6.7). The largest share (12.9 percent, or 244) returned to zip code 78203,
where a halfway house for parole and MS releasees is located. This facility houses
approximately 42 individuals at any given time and served about 200 individuals in
2003.182 The next largest share (7.4 percent, or 140) returned to zip code 78207.
Thirty-eight percent (1,199) of Bexar County’s returning prisoners were unsupervised
upon release, and 2 percent (63) were released to shock probation (return zip codes were
unavailable for these groups).
The majority of the returning prisoners were male (91 percent), a slightly higher
percentage than across the state (86 percent).
The racial distribution of returning prisoners was similar to the distribution of exprisoners across the state, but differed significantly from the distribution among Bexar
County residents. Twenty-nine percent of prisoners returning to Bexar County were
Hispanic, while 59 percent of county residents were. Forty-one percent of releasees were
non-Hispanic black, while 5 percent of residents were. And 29 percent of releasees were
non-Hispanic white, while 35 percent of residents were. Approximately 1 percent of
releasees were of other or unknown race or ethnicity.
Notably, the most common conviction offense among those returning to Bexar County
was violent offenses (62 percent), which is significantly higher than the 17 percent of
prisoners released statewide who were incarcerated for violent offenses. Of these violent
offenses, most (41 percent) were assaults, 30 percent were robberies, 19 percent were
sexual assaults, 7 percent were homicides, and 1 percent were kidnapping. Only 13
percent of Bexar releases had been convicted of drug offenses and only 13 percent had
been convicted for property offenses (figure 6.8). Bexar is the only county in Texas in
which violent offenses represent the most common conviction type of released prisoners.
58
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
Figure 6.7. Percentage of supervised releasees to Bexar County by zip code, 2001
Note: The total number of releasees to Bexar County is
3,156; 1,266 or 40 percent are not shown on the map
due to incomplete addresses at the zip code level.
Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2001 TDCJ data.
Figure 6.8. Offense types of Bexar County prisoner releasees and all Texas prisoner releasees, 2001
70%
62%
60%
50%
39%
40%
33%
30%
20%
17%
13%
13%
10%
5% 5%
2% 1%
5% 4%
0%
Drug
Property
Violent
DWI
Weapons
Other
Bexar County
All counties
Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2001 TDCJ data.
Note:
Figures total more than 100 percent due to rounding.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
59
PRISONER REENTRY IN TRAVIS COUNTY
Travis County is one of the smaller counties that contain a metropolitan city, Austin, and it is one
of the more economically advantaged counties in the state. Thirteen percent of its 812,280
residents live below the poverty level (compared with 15 percent statewide), and its median
household income ($46,761) is 17 percent above the statewide median of $39,927. Travis
County’s unemployment rate (3 percent) is lower than the statewide average of 4 percent.
Approximately 6 percent of households in the county are female-headed, close to the statewide
average of 8 percent.
Who Returned to Travis County?
In 2001, 2,342 released state prisoners returned to Travis County, at a rate of 2.9
prisoners per 1,000 residents.
Fifty-seven percent (1,335) of the county’s returning prisoners were released to MS or
parole (figure 6.9). The largest share (36.7 percent, or 490) returned to zip code 78617,
where a halfway house for parolees, MS releases, and probationers is located. On any
given day, this facility houses approximately 130 parolees and mandatory supervision
releasees along with 50 probationers. It served approximately 650 individuals in 2003.183
The next largest share (7.5 percent) of ex-prisoners returned to zip code 78702.
Forty-two percent (984) of the county’s returning prisoners were unsupervised upon
release and 1 percent (23) were released to shock probation (return zip codes were
unavailable for these groups).
Most (89 percent) of the released state prisoners who returned to Travis County were
male, approximately the same percentage as those released throughout the state.
The racial composition of prisoners returning to Travis County is more similar to the
statewide distribution of prisoners than the other counties discussed above; but like the
other counties, the racial composition of the releases to Travis County departs from the
racial composition of the county’s general population. Non-Hispanic whites accounted
for 38 percent of the releasees to Travis County, while they account for 56 percent of the
county’s residents. Hispanics account for 33 percent of the county’s releasees and 29
percent of its residents. Non-Hispanic blacks accounted for 28 percent of the county’s
releasees and only 9 percent of its residents.
Travis County releasees had been incarcerated for offenses similar to prisoners released
across the state. Forty percent of ex-prisoners returning to Travis County had been
incarcerated for property offenses, 28 percent had been incarcerated for drug offenses,
and 15 percent had been incarcerated for violent offenses (figure 6.10).
60
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
Figure 6.7. Percentage of supervised releasees to Travis County by zip code, 2001
Note: The total number of releasees to Travis County is 2,342;
1,012 or 43 percent are not shown on the map due to incomplete
addresses at the zip code level.
Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2001 TDCJ data.
Figure 6.10. Offense types of Travis County prisoner releasees and all Texas prisoner releasees, 2001
70%
60%
50%
39%
40%
40%
33%
30%
28%
20%
15%
17%
11%
10%
5%
1% 1%
5% 4%
0%
Drug
Property
Violent
DWI
Weapons
Other
Travis County
All counties
Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2001 TDCJ data.
Note:
Figures total more than 100 percent due to rounding.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
61
PRISONER REENTRY IN HARRIS COUNTY
With more than three million residents, Harris County is the most populous county in the state
and the third largest in the United States. Approximately 15 percent of the population lives below
the poverty level, equal to the state average. Harris County’s unemployment rate (4.2 percent) is
slightly higher than the statewide average of 3.8 percent. Its median household income of $42,598
is 7 percent higher than the statewide median household income of $39,927. Female-headed
households with children under 18 years of age account for nearly 8.3 percent of all households in
the county—just above the statewide average of 7.6 percent.184
Who Returned to Harris County?
In 2001, 14,129 released prisoners returned to Harris County, at a rate of 4.2 returning
prisoners per 1,000 residents.
Forty-seven percent (6,641) of the county’s returning prisoners were released to MS or
parole (figure 6.11). The largest share (8.1 percent, or 538) returned to zip code 77072.
The next largest share (5.2 percent, or 348) returned to zip code 77078, where a halfway
house for parolees, MS releases, and probationers is located. This halfway house held
393 parole and MS releases along with 23 probationers as of February 19, 2004, and it
served 1,192 individuals in 2003.185
Fifty-two percent (7,347) of the county’s returning prisoners were unsupervised upon
release, and 1 percent (141) were released to shock probation (return zip codes were
unavailable for these groups).
The majority of the prisoners who returned to Harris County in 2001 were male (87
percent), similar to prisoners released across the state.
Forty-one percent of prisoners returning to Harris County were non-Hispanic white,
mirroring the proportion of residents who are non-Hispanic white. In contrast, 45 percent
of Harris County releasees were non-Hispanic black, while only 18 percent of residents
were. At the same time, 14 percent of prisoners returning to Harris County were
Hispanic, compared with 33 percent of the county’s residents. Less than 1 percent of
prisoners released to Harris County were of other or unknown racial background, and 6
percent of Harris County residents are of Asian or other racial or ethnic backgrounds.
As with returning prisoners across Texas, the largest share of released prisoners
returning to Harris County had been incarcerated for drug offenses (36 percent), the
second largest share had been incarcerated for property offenses (33 percent), and the
third largest share had been incarcerated for violent offenses (17 percent) (figure 6.12).
62
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
Figure 6.11. Percentage of supervised releasees to Harris County by zip code, 2001
Note: The total number of releasees to Harris County is 14,129; 7,535
or 53 percent are not shown on the map due to incomplete addresses
at the zip code level.
Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2001 TDCJ data.
Figure 6.12. Offense types of Harris County prisoner releasees and all Texas prisoner releasees,
2001
70%
60%
50%
40%
39%
36%
33% 33%
30%
20%
17% 17%
10%
7% 5%
2% 1%
5% 4%
0%
Drug
Property
Violent
DWI
Weapons
Other
Harris County
All counties
Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2001 TDCJ data.
Note:
Figures total more than 100 percent due to rounding.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
63
64
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
CHAPTER 7
To Which Houston Neighborhoods Are Texas
Prisoners Returning?
O
ne in four Texas prisoners return to Harris County. Nearly half (47 percent) of all
releases in 2001 to Harris County were released to parole or mandatory supervision
(MS), and the vast majority (88 percent) of these supervised releasees returned to
Houston. Not only does Houston receive the largest number of supervised releasees (5,823 men
and women in 2001), it also represents a much higher rate of return than the statewide average.
Supervised releasees returned to Houston at a rate of 3.1 released prisoners for every 1,000
residents, versus a statewide rate of 1.1 released prisoners for every 1,000 residents, and a rate of
1.9 released prisoners for every 1,000 residents in Harris County.186 For these reasons, we give
special attention to Houston.
The nearly two million residents of Houston face similar economic and social conditions
as residents of other cities in Texas. The median household income in Houston is $36,616—
slightly below the statewide median household income of $39,927. Unemployment in Houston
totals 5 percent, approximating the statewide average of 4 percent. And almost a fifth (19 percent)
of Houston’s residents live below the federal poverty level, which is slightly higher than the
statewide average of 15 percent. In addition, female-headed households account for 9 percent of
the households in Houston, close to the statewide average of 8 percent. The crime rate in Houston
is 73.8 incidents per 1,000 residents, 43 percent higher than the statewide average of 51.5.
The impact of prisoner reentry is felt most acutely in a small number of Houston’s
neighborhoods. A quarter of all supervised releasees returning to Houston are concentrated in 5 of
the city’s 185 zip codes (the return zip code is unknown for prisoners who are not subject to
postrelease supervision). Notably, the zip code receiving the second greatest share of returning
supervised releasees includes a halfway house, which may explain the relatively large number of
prisoners returning there. These five high-return zip codes overlap largely with 7 of the city’s 88
“super neighborhoods”—they are among the city’s most economically disadvantaged
neighborhoods. These neighborhoods and their characteristics are further discussed below.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
65
OVERVIEW OF RELEASED PRISONERS WHO RETURNED TO HOUSTON
Reflecting the characteristics of all prisoners returning to Texas in general, the majority of
supervised releasees returning to Houston in 2001 were male (86 percent), 37 years old on
average, and single.187 In contrast to the general cohort of returning prisoners, Houston supervised
releasees are slightly more likely to be non-Hispanic black (49 versus 44 percent), more likely to
be non-Hispanic white (43 versus 32 percent), and significantly less likely to be Hispanic (8
versus 24 percent). As is the case with Texas releasees, less than 1 percent of all Houston
supervised releasees are of an unknown or other race or ethnicity. By way of comparison, nonHispanic blacks represent 25 percent of Houston’s residents, non-Hispanic whites comprise 31
percent of the residents, Hispanics represent the greatest share of Houston’s residents (37
percent), and other racial groups make up the remaining 7 percent of the residents (figure 7.1).
Given that the Hispanic population is so large in Houston, it is noteworthy that a small percentage
of supervised releasees returning to the city are Hispanic.
The same percentage of supervised releasees returning to Houston had been convicted of
a property offense as had been convicted of a drug offense (34 percent in both cases), making
property offenses slightly more common among Houston supervised releasees than in the exprisoner cohort as a whole. Houston supervised releasees were also slightly more likely than the
average Texas releasee to have been convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) (9 versus 5
percent). The remaining offenses were distributed similarly across both cohorts (figure 7.2). On
average, nearly a third (29 percent) of Houston supervised releasees had served less than two
years in state jail or prison, and approximately the same percentage (28 percent) had served
between 5 and 10 years.
Although this information is unavailable at the city level, analysis of the data revealed
that 18 percent of prisoners released to Harris County (most of whom likely returned to Houston)
were confinees and the rest were state prisoners. In 2001, 47 percent of ex-prisoners who returned
to Harris County were released conditionally—that is, they were subject to some period of
postrelease supervision. Nearly half (48 percent) of these prisoners were released to parole,
slightly more than half (52 percent) were released to mandatory supervision, and a negligible
share (less than 1 percent) were released to shock probation. The likelihood that prisoners
released to supervision will violate the conditions of their parole or mandatory supervision is
substantial. Of the prisoners released to supervision in Houston in 2001, 45 percent had violated
parole or mandatory supervision at the time of their most recent incarceration.
66
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
Figure 7.1. Houston residents, Houston supervised releasees, and all TDCJ releasees by
race/ethnicity, 2001
60%
49%
50%
44%
43%
40%
37%
32%
31%
30%
25%
24%
20%
8%
10%
7%
0
0%
African American
White
Houston residents
Hispanic
Houston releasees
0
Other/unknown
All releasees
Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2001 TDCJ data.
Figure 7.2. Houston supervised releasees and all TDCJ releasees by offense type, 2001
70%
60%
50%
39%
40%
34%
34% 33%
30%
20%
17% 17%
9%
10%
5%
2%
5%
1%
4%
0%
D ru g
P ro p e rty
V iole n t
DW I
W ea po n s
O th e r
H o u sto n
S ta te w id e
Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2001 TDCJ data.
Note:
Figures total more than 100 percent due to rounding.
PRISONER REENTRY IN HOUSTON NEIGHBORHOODS
In Texas, supervised releasees are not only concentrated in Houston—the largest
metropolitan area in the state—but also in certain neighborhoods in Houston. Prisoner reentry
affects not only the prisoners who are returning home but also the neighborhoods to which they
are returning. Conversely, the characteristics of the neighborhoods to which released prisoners
return may affect a prisoner’s prospects for successful reentry. For instance, the availability and
cost of housing and the availability and proximity of jobs in a neighborhood may influence
postrelease outcomes for returning prisoners. In addition, the availability—or absence of—social
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
67
services, such as health care and substance abuse treatment, also is likely to affect reentry
transition and recidivism.
As shown in figure 7.3, the distribution of supervised releasees varies widely across
Houston, with the largest number returning to the northeast and southwest areas of the city. A
quarter (25.9 percent) of all supervised releasees returned to five zip codes (figure 7.4). The rate
at which supervised releasees return to each of these five zip codes exceeds the rate at which
prisoners return to Houston by between 113 and 674 percent (figure 7.5). The neighborhoods with
the largest numbers of returning supervised releasees are Alief, East Houston, Third Ward,
MacGregor, Kashmere Gardens, East Little York/Homestead, and Trinity/Houston Gardens—just
7 of Houston’s 88 “super neighborhoods.” All but one of these neighborhoods received close to
or more than 200 released supervised releasees in 2001—higher than the number returning to
some entire counties in Texas (figure 7.4).
Figure 7.3. Supervised releasees to Houston’s high-return neighborhoods by zip code, 2001
Note: Of the 14,129 releasees to Harris County, the city and zip
code was known for 6,594 (47 %) releasees. These prisoners were
released to parole or mandatory supervision.
Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2001 TDCJ data.
68
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
Figure 7.4. Numbers and rates of supervised releasees returning to Houston’s high-return zip codes,
2001
Number of returning
parolees & MS releasees
Rate per
1,000 residents
77072 (Alief)
538
10.4
77078 (East Houston)
348
24.0
77004 (MacGregor/Third W ard)
216
7.3
77026 (Kashmere Gardens; Trinity/Houston Gardens)
207
7.5
77016 (E. Little York/Homestead; Trinity/Houston Gardens)
196
6.6
5,823
3.1
Citywide
Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data and 2001 TDCJ data.
Figure 7.5. Rates of supervised releasees returning to Texas, Harris County, Houston, and Houston’s
high-return zip codes (per 1,000 residents), 2001
25
24.0
20
15
10.4
10
6.6
7.3
7.5
77004
77026
5
1.9
2.5
3.1
1.1
0
Texas
Harris County
Houston minus
high-return zip
codes
All Houston
77016
77072
77078
Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data and 2001 TDCJ data.
The return of supervised releasees to these seven neighborhoods is only part of the story.
Another important factor is the high rates of people from these communities who are sent to
prison and state jail. Such high levels of residents cycling into and out of prison may disrupt
social networks and social relationships in communities. Some researchers suggest that
communities with weakened social networks have less success promoting informal social control
among residents, which can result in increased neighborhood crime, though little is known about
this phenomenon.188
What we do know is that, in addition to being home to large numbers of returning
supervised releasees, some of these areas are among the Houston neighborhoods most affected by
poverty, unemployment, crime, and other challenges (figures 7.6 to 7.11). In 2000, the
percentages of households in these neighborhoods that were below the poverty level were much
higher than the citywide average (all but one neighborhood was above the city average, as shown
in figure 7.6. These neighborhoods also have high shares of female-headed households and some
experience violent, property, and drug crime at significantly higher levels than the average for
Houston. In figure 7.6, we summarize these and other characteristics for the seven neighborhoods
that received the highest number of returning supervised releasees in 2001 and rank each
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
69
neighborhood on the basis of key demographic data. Kashmere Gardens and the Third Ward
consistently have the highest concentrations of these challenges. We then turn to individual
profiles of these seven Houston neighborhoods.
Figure 7.6. Rank of Houston’s seven high-return neighborhoods by demographic characteristic, 2001
Community
area and zip code
Alief (77072)
% Different from city mean
East Houston (77078)
% Different from city mean
Third Ward (77004)
% Different from city mean
Vacant
housing
Renteroccupied
housing
6.1%
49.3%
72.0%
-1.0
2.3
-25.6
High
school
graduates
Unemployment
7.4%
-2.6
Non-white
Femaleheaded
households
82.6%
13.3%
19.4
51.1
Persons
below
poverty
level
16.1%
Violent
crime rate
(per 1,000
residents)
Drug crime
rate
(per 1,000
residents)
14.0
5.0
-14.8
14.8
-3.8
6.2
34.4
56.5
13.5
94.3
17.9
33.6
19.4
6.2
-24.4
-30.9
-19.7
77.6
36.3
103.4
77.8
59.0
19.2
17.6
63.8
55.8
38.8
93.4
16.1
38.1
23.9
25.5
114.6
28.1
-20.7
410.5
35.0
83.0
101.6
95.9
390.4
MacGregor (77004)
12.8
48.5
84.4
8.1
90.7
11.1
26.4
14.0
8.9
% Different from city mean
56.1
-2.6
19.9
6.6
31.1
26.1
39.7
14.8
71.2
Kashmere Gardens (77026)
12.0
49.6
51.9
14.9
99.3
14.1
36.9
57.6
36.4
% Different from city mean
46.3
-0.4
-26.3
96.1
43.5
60.2
95.2
372.1
600.0
5.3
22.2
66.3
10.8
97.6
11.8
24.5
11.1
6.0
-35.4
-55.4
-5.8
42.1
41.0
34.1
29.6
-9.0
15.4
Trinity/Houston Gardens
(77016)
10.8
34.8
55.5
16.9
98.2
12.2
33.4
20.3
14.1
% Different from city mean
31.7
-30.1
-21.2
122.4
41.9
38.6
76.7
66.4
171.2
18.9%
12.2
5.2
East Little York/ Homestead
(77016)
% Different from city mean
City average
8.2%
49.8%
70.4%
7.6%
69.2%
8.8%
Source: Urban Institute analysis of City of Houston data and 2001 TDCJ data.
Figure 7.7. Rate of selected crimes (per 1,000 residents) by Houston neighborhood, 2001
Note:
Auto theft
rate
Drug
rate
25.55
15.84
5.02
13.79
19.50
6.64
8.86
23.86
18.17
7.31
28.65
Kashmere Gardens
57.59
53.07
37.75
36.42
Trinity/Houston Gardens
20.27
26.53
14.01
14.07
E. Little York/Homestead
11.11
13.10
7.68
5.96
East Houston
19.35
34.95
13.07
6.23
City of Houston
12.20
13.00
12.50
5.20
Neighborhood
Violent
rate
Burglary
rate
Alief
14.02
MacGregor
Third Ward
The number of crimes per neighborhood is estimated by assigning crimes occurring within that neighborhood's police
beats. Because some neighborhoods have more than one police beat, and some police beats span more than one
neighborhood, a police beat is considered part of a neighborhood if at least 50 percent of the beat falls within the
neighborhood.
Source: Urban Institute analysis of City of Houston data and 2001 TDCJ data.
70
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
Figure 7.8. Percentage of residents below the poverty level by Houston neighborhoods, 2001
Source: Urban Institute analysis of City of Houston data and 2001 TDCJ data.
Figure 7.9. Percentage of female-headed households by Houston neighborhoods, 2001
Source: Urban Institute analysis of City of Houston data and 2001 TDCJ data.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
71
Figure 7.10. Percentage of unemployed residents by Houston neighborhoods, 2001
Source: Urban Institute analysis of City of Houston data and 2001 TDCJ data.
Figure 7.11. Percentage of renter-occupied housing by Houston neighborhoods, 2001
Source: Urban Institute analysis of City of Houston data and 2001 TDCJ data.
72
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
Alief (Zip Code: 77072). In 2001, 538 supervised releasees returned to the 77072 zip code area
(population 51,716) at a rate of 10.4 releasees per 1,000 residents (figure 7.4). Sixteen percent of
the persons in the associated neighborhood of Alief are living below the poverty level, and the
neighborhood has a 7 percent unemployment rate—both rates are slightly below the citywide
average. Seventy-two percent of its residents are high school graduates, and the population in this
neighborhood is 31 percent Hispanic, 29 percent non-Hispanic black, 21 percent Asian, 17
percent non-Hispanic white, and 2 percent other races or ethnicities. Female-headed households
account for 13 percent of the households in this neighborhood, which is 51 percent higher than
the citywide rate of 9 percent. The neighborhood is characterized by 6 percent vacant housing,
and 49 percent of housing units are renter-occupied. Alief’s violent crime rate of 14.0 crimes per
1,000 residents is 15 percent higher than the city average of 12.2 crimes. Property crime is 41.7
per 1,000 residents, or 32 percent lower than the city average of 61.6. The drug crime rate in Alief
is 5.0 crimes per 1,000 residents, approximately the same as the city average of 5.2.
East Houston (Zip Code: 77078). In 2001, 348 supervised releasees returned to the zip code of
77078 (est. population 14.479), at a rate of 24 releasees per 1,000 residents. This constitutes the
highest rate among the five zip codes receiving the greatest number of supervised releasees, and
is 674 percent higher than the citywide rate (figure 7.4). The high rate of return to this zip code
may be explained by the presence of a halfway house for parolees, MS releasees, and
probationers. Halfway house staff conjecture that, because this zip code is primarily an industrial
area, nearly all of the supervised releasees who come to this zip code do so to live in the halfway
house, and that, upon leaving the halfway house, they tend to reside in another area and zip code.
The East Houston neighborhood spans most of this zip code. One-third of the residents of
East Houston live below the poverty level, which is 78 percent higher than the city average; the
neighborhood’s unemployment rate is 78 percent higher than the city average of 8 percent; and
female-headed households account for 18 percent of households in the area. Six percent of East
Houston housing is vacant, and 34 percent is renter-occupied. Fifty-seven percent of its residents
are high school graduates, which is 20 percent lower than the city average of 70 percent. The
population in this neighborhood is 70 percent non-Hispanic black, 23 percent Hispanic, 6 percent
non-Hispanic white, and 1 percent other races and ethnicities. Violent crimes in this
neighborhood are 19.4 per 1,000 residents, or 59 percent more than the city average (12.2 per
1,000 residents). Property crimes are 47.8 per 1,000 residents, 22 percent lower than the city
average of 61.6. The drug crime rate in East Houston is 6.2 crimes per 1,000 residents, 19 percent
higher than the city average.
Third Ward and MacGregor (Zip Code: 77004). In 2001, 216 supervised releasees returned to
the zip code 77004 (population 29,460), at a rate of approximately 7.3 releasees per 1,000
residents (figure 7.4). The vast majority of this zip code is covered by the Third Ward/MacGregor
neighborhoods.189
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
73
The Third Ward is by far the most disadvantaged of the seven neighborhoods described
here: 38 percent of its residents live below the poverty level, which is 102 percent higher than the
city average; the neighborhood has a 39 percent unemployment rate, which is 410 percent higher
than the city average; and female-headed households account for 16 percent of its households.
Eighteen percent of Third Ward housing is vacant, and 64 percent is renter-occupied. Fifty-six
percent of its residents are high school graduates, which is 21 percent lower than the city average
of 70 percent. The population in the Third Ward neighborhood is 79 percent non-Hispanic black,
10 percent Hispanic, 7 percent non-Hispanic white, and 4 percent other races and ethnicities.
With regard to crime, the Third Ward experienced violent crime at a rate of 23.9 crimes per 1,000
residents, which is 96 percent higher than the city average of 12.2. The property crime rate
occurred at a rate of 25.5, which is 59 percent lower than the city average of 61.6. The Third
Ward’s drug crime rate is 25.5, 390.4 percent higher than the city average of 5.2.
The MacGregor neighborhood, which is the other part of the 77004 zip code area, is quite
different from the Third Ward. Proportionally fewer persons live below the poverty level and
proportionally fewer residents are unemployed; crime rates are lower; and the percentage of high
school graduates exceeds the city average by 20 percent. Twenty-six percent of MacGregor
residents live below the poverty level, 8 percent are unemployed, and 11 percent of its households
are female-headed households. Thirteen percent of MacGregor housing is vacant, and 49 percent
is renter-occupied housing. The MacGregor population is 80 percent non-Hispanic black, 9
percent non-Hispanic white, 5 percent Hispanic, and 6 percent other races and ethnicities. The
violent crime rate is 14.0 crimes per 1,000 residents, 14.8 percent higher than the citywide rate of
12.2. The property crime rate is 26.2, 57 percent lower than the citywide rate of 61.6. At the same
time, the drug crime rate is 8.9 crimes per 1,000 residents, 71 percent higher than the city average
of 5.2.
Kashmere Gardens (Zip Code: 77026). In 2001, 207 supervised releasees returned to zip code
77026 (population 27,593), at a rate of 7.5 releasees per 1,000 residents (figure 7.4). Most of this
zip code falls in the Kashmere Gardens neighborhood, which has a total population of 11,286.
Thirty-seven percent of this neighborhood’s residents live below the poverty level (95 percent
higher than the city average). The neighborhood has a 15 percent unemployment rate, and women
head 14 percent of the neighborhood’s households. Vacant housing is 46 percent higher than the
city average, but renter-occupied housing is the same as the city average of 50 percent. Fifty-two
percent of Kashmere Garden residents are high school graduates, and the population in this area is
almost entirely non-white (85 percent are non-Hispanic black). This neighborhood has the highest
crime rate of the seven neighborhoods described here: the violent crime rate is 57.6 per 1,000
residents, which is 372 percent higher than the city average of 12.2; the property crime rate is
36.4 per 1,000 residents, 41 percent lower than the city average of 61.6; and the drug crime rate is
36.4 crimes per 1,000 residents, 600 percent higher than the city average of 5.2.
74
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
East Little York/Homestead and Trinity/Houston Gardens (Zip Code 77016). In 2001, 196
supervised releasees returned to zip code 77016 (population 29,753), at a rate of 6.6 releasees per
1,000 residents (figure 7.4). Most of this zip code spans the East Little York/Homestead and
Trinity/Houston Gardens neighborhoods. One-quarter of the residents of East Little
York/Homestead live below the poverty level, which is 30 percent higher than the city average;
the neighborhood’s unemployment rate is 42 percent higher than the city average of almost 8
percent; and female-headed households account for 12 percent of households in the area. Five
percent of this neighborhood’s housing is vacant, and 22 percent is renter-occupied. Sixty-six
percent of its residents are high school graduates. The population in this neighborhood is 83
percent non-Hispanic black, 14 percent Hispanic, 2 percent non-Hispanic white, and 1 percent
other races and ethnicities. The violent crime rate in this community is 11.1 crimes per 1,000
residents, lower than the city average by 10 percent. The property crime rate is 20.1 per 1,000
residents, 67 percent lower than the citywide rate of 61.6. The drug crime rate in Little
York/Homestead is 6.0 crimes per 1,000 residents, 15 percent higher than the city average.
The crime rate in the Trinity/Houston Gardens neighborhood is nearly two times that of
East Little York/Homestead, and its residents are poorer and less educated. One-third of its
residents live below the poverty level, which is 77 percent higher than the city average; the
neighborhood’s unemployment rate is 122 percent higher than the city average of 8 percent; and
female-headed households account for 12 percent of households in the area. Eleven percent of
this neighborhood’s housing is vacant, and 35 percent is renter-occupied. Fifty-six percent of its
residents are high school graduates. The population in this neighborhood is 81 percent nonHispanic black, 16 percent Hispanic, 2 percent non-Hispanic white, and 1 percent other races and
ethnicities. Violent crimes in this neighborhood are 20.3 per 1,000 residents, 66 percent above the
city average. The property crime rate is 40.6 per 1,000 residents, 34 percent lower than the
citywide property crime rate. The drug crime rate in Trinity/Houston Gardens is 14.1 crimes per
1,000 residents, 171 percent higher than the city average of 5.2.
Services for Returning Prisoners in Houston Neighborhoods
The profiles of these seven neighborhoods suggest that they contain some of the most
disadvantaged areas in the city, with the fewest economic and human capital resources. Perhaps it
is not surprising that these neighborhoods are home to more returning supervised releasees, and
potentially other returning prisoners; but these profiles raise important policy questions about the
ability of these neighborhoods both to insulate against the potential negative impact of returning
prisoners and to provide resources to these ex-prisoners. Adding to the challenges faced by these
neighborhoods, as shown in figure 7.12, few of the organizations that provide ex-prisoner
services—such as employment, housing, substance abuse treatment, or some combination of
these support services—are located in and around the neighborhoods that are home to the most
returning supervised releasees.190 Our inventory, which may not include the universe of services
for returning prisoners in the city, nonetheless identifies few services located in or near four of
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
75
the five zip codes with large numbers of returning prisoners (figure 7.13). Only the zip code
77004 (MacGregor and Third Ward) is located near a substantial number and variety of services.
For the majority of these areas, then, services are located some distance away. It is not known
whether prisoners returning to Houston are aware of the social services in the city, the extent to
which they already use them, and whether they have the means to make use of them. For
example, transportation issues and costs of services may be barriers to taking advantage of
programs and assistance that might aid the reintegration process.
Figure 7.12. Social services for Houston’s high-return neighborhoods, 2001
Community
Number and percent
of social service
providers
Type of social service
Alief
1
(2.0%)
Employment (1)
(8.0 %)
Substance abuse treatment (4)
Third Ward
4
Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2001 TDCJ data and Elycia Daniel, Sam Houston State University.
Figure 7.13. Percentage of supervised releasees and services by Houston neighborhoods, 2001
Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2001 TDCJ data and Elycia Daniel, Sam Houston State University.
76
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
CHAPTER 8
Conclusion
HIGHLIGHTS
O
ver the past quarter-century, the growth in prison populations nationwide has translated
into more and more people being released from prison and reentering society. The state
of Texas has experienced similar incarceration and release trends, but it has far
exceeded the nation’s rate of growth. Thus, Texas faces the heightened reentry challenges that
accompany such growth. Between 1980 and 2002, the Texas prison population increased more
than fivefold. This growth is attributable primarily to prisoners spending longer periods of time
incarcerated, mostly as a result of declining approvals for parole but also due to the meting out of
longer sentences combined with legislation requiring most felons to serve a greater percentage of
their sentence. Rising admissions also increased the state corrections population. Admissions
grew primarily as a result of an increase in drug and violent crime arrests and felony convictions.
The number of people released from Texas correctional facilities reflects these rising
admissions and population trends: in 2001, Texas prisons and state jails released 55,183
prisoners, an increase of 419 percent from 1980, when 10,636 prisoners were released. The
majority of prisoners released in 2001 were male (86 percent), and the largest share was black (44
percent). Almost two-thirds were between 20 and 40 years old at the time of their release, with
the median age at release being 34. Over one-third had been serving time for drug offenses;
property offenses were the next largest share. Prisoners released in 2001 served an average of 3.4
years. State prisoners served, on average, 4.6 years (47 percent of their sentence), while confinees
served, on average, 11 months—nearly 100 percent of their sentence.
The share of prisoners released through a decision by the Board of Pardons and Paroles
or a judge (discretionary means) has fallen sharply over the past 14 years, from 75 percent in
1988 to 38 percent in 2002. Thus, in 2002, over half (62 percent) of Texas’s prisoners were
released through nondiscretionary means such as expiration of sentence or nondiscretionary
mandatory supervision release. This shift from discretionary to mandatory release mechanisms
has consequences for life after prison because mandatory releases do not require prisoners to
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
77
appear before a parole board or other authority to be reviewed or to present a home or
employment plan for after their release.
Returning prisoners in Texas have many needs as they begin the process of reintegration,
and the likelihood of recidivism is high. Years of incarceration for a felony offense, combined
with significant substance abuse issues, do not bode well for maintaining crime-free lifestyles,
and they can also create barriers to employment. Programs, such as Project RIO, that offer jobreadiness assistance to prisoners and provide economic incentives to employers who hire exfelons may aid in the reintegration process. InnerChange Freedom Initiative (IFI), a faith-based
intervention program providing vocational and life skills programs within the prison, also holds
promise as an effective means of preparing prisoners for successful reentry.
Of prisoners released to parole and mandatory supervision, the largest share (23 percent,
or 5,823) returned to Houston (local data were unavailable for other prisoners). Nearly a quarter
(26 percent) of these released prisoners returned to just five of Houston’s zip codes that are
largely encompassed by seven neighborhoods: Alief (77072), East Houston (77078), Third Ward
and MacGregor (77004), Trinity/Houston Gardens and Kashmere Gardens (77026), and East
Little York/Homestead and Trinity/Houston Gardens (77016). Most of these neighborhoods are
also characterized by high levels of poverty and other measures of disadvantage, and one of them,
Alief, received 538 parolees and mandatory supervision releasees in 2001—more than the
number that returned to most counties in Texas. East Houston received the second largest number
of supervised releasees (348), which may be explained by the halfway house located in this
community. Only a handful of services for ex-prisoners are located within or in close proximity to
neighborhoods with high rates of returns, raising the question of whether state prisoners returning
to Houston are able to access these resources.
This report can only provide limited findings on program participation by prisoners since
many TDCJ programs do not report participation rates. In addition, calculations based on
participation and admission rates may count more than once prisoners who participate in multiple
programs. Still, the data that exist indicate that almost all prisoners have work assignments and,
of potential participants, nearly half took part in education programs, more than a third received
vocational or work-readiness assistance, and at least four percent were admitted to drug treatment
programs. The impact of Texas’s current budget deficit on these and other programs is unclear,
but the potential of a significant negative impact exists. Although the state is expanding its
programs by using funds from the federal Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative to
develop a reentry program for administrative segregation prisoners, this program will serve only a
small proportion of prisoners who are dispersed across the state. These programs are, however,
important given that some neighborhoods in Houston and other major cities are burdened with
challenges in accommodating returning prisoners and providing services to promote their
successful reintegration.
78
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
This report represents the first stage of our research on reentry in Texas and raises a number of
questions that will be answered in later phases of our study. While we know much from our
analysis of a cohort of released prisoners in Texas, there is much more to be learned. Such
additional knowledge can provide valuable guidance to practitioners and policymakers as they
prepare to expand reentry efforts in the state.
We know, for example, that the largest share of prisoners released in Texas return to
Houston and that returning prisoners are even more concentrated within a few communities in the
city. An examination of demographic data for these areas indicates that they are economically
disadvantaged compared with the city averages. What we do not know from this research,
however, is how these community characteristics might affect individual postrelease outcomes.
For example, are released prisoners returning to high-crime areas more likely to recidivate than
those returning to areas in which the crime rate is closer to the city average?
Very little is known about the family circumstances of released prisoners or about the
role that family and other peer and interpersonal relationships play in either facilitating or
preventing recidivism. This information would be useful in developing the content of family
reunification programs both behind bars and on the outside. It could also help guide counseling
efforts aimed at encouraging ex-prisoners to establish or renew relationships with prosocial,
rather than antisocial, peers.
In addition, we do not know much about the different types of reentry challenges that
different populations might face. For example, youthful ex-prisoners are likely to have different
issues and challenges than their older counterparts. Similarly, employment issues are probably
different for those who have served long prison terms than for those whose terms were brief. And
reentry challenges for women, who often have different and more pressing family issues than
men, are likely to differ from those of men. Identifying the different needs for subpopulations of
returning prisoners will aid in effective program design, avoiding the “one size fits all” model in
favor of one that targets individuals’ needs.
FUTURE RESEARCH
As mentioned earlier, this report is the first product of a larger study, Returning Home:
Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry, which examines prisoner reentry in four states.
Other components of the Returning Home Texas study—pre- and postrelease interviews with
prisoners returning to Houston and postrelease interviews with ex-prisoners’ families—will
explore many of the unanswered questions described above. These interviews are critical to
understanding the individual, family, and community circumstances affecting reentry.
Such interviews, combined with analyses of official records, will help identify needs of
returning prisoners that are not currently being met, such as housing, employment, and health
care. The longitudinal aspect of this study will help practitioners prioritize programs by focusing
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
79
on some of these needs before others. For example, we may learn that for certain types of exprisoners, enrolling in an outpatient substance abuse program within the first 30 days after release
is more important than finding a job. We may discover that some returning prisoners find a job
too early, before they have become accustomed to life on the outside, making it difficult to keep
the job while managing other pressures of reentry. Such findings can help case managers better
prepare prisoners for release and support them after release.
Interviews with family members may help identify factors that have a bearing on the
returning prisoner’s ability to stay drug- and crime-free. For example, we may find that family
support in drug rehabilitation is an important predictor of a prisoner’s staying off drugs after
release from prison, suggesting the expansion of drug treatment programs that include family
member involvement. These family interviews will also enable us to explore the role that
expectations—on the part of both the prisoner and the family member—may have on the
prisoner’s reintegration experience.
Returning Home also explores the role of community setting and organizations in state
prisoner reentry through an assessment of local community resources, assets, and risks; analyses
of community administrative and census data; interviews with community stakeholders; and
focus groups with community residents. Interviews with community stakeholders will shed light
on gaps in local resources available to returning state prisoners, particularly in the areas with the
largest numbers of returning prisoners. Neighborhood focus groups can inform grassroots efforts
to support returning prisoners (e.g., helping them find housing and jobs and offering child care
services). And, by linking individual data on released prisoners to data on neighborhood
indicators, we can begin to explore the influence that community characteristics have on
postrelease success or failure.
80
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
RETURNING HOME RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Returning Home’s two primary research questions are: What is the experience of those
being released from prison and returning home? What factors influence a released
prisoner’s propensity to reoffend? The first research question is primarily descriptive and
qualitative in nature. We plan to document and describe the individual reentry trajectory—
from prison release to early entry, reconnection, and full integration in society—exploring
the critical stages of integration and the role of individual life events, family support,
community context, and state sentencing and release policies in this trajectory. The
second research question is predictive in nature and is supported by ancillary questions,
including the following:
▪ How do individual characteristics (e.g., demographics, family, criminal history,
psychological attributes, life events, health and substance abuse status, and attitudes and
beliefs) affect postrelease criminal behavior?
▪ How does family support (emotional and financial) affect postrelease criminal behavior?
▪ How do in-prison experiences (both formal and informal) affect postrelease criminal
behavior?
▪ How do an individual’s postrelease supervision status and conditions of release (if any)
affect postrelease criminal behavior?
▪ How do peer relationships affect postrelease criminal behavior?
▪ How do community factors (e.g., economic viability, housing availability, social service
delivery, crime rates, social capital) affect postrelease criminal behavior?
We also plan to explore intermediate outcomes that represent positive postprison
adjustment and that can, in turn, reduce recidivism. Examples include acquiring and
maintaining a job, obtaining and paying for housing, and remaining free of substance
abuse.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
81
82
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
Notes
1
From 1977 to 2001, the number of state and federal prisoners released each year has grown from nearly
148,000 to around 630,000. The 1977 figure comes from Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2000. “Sentenced
Prisoners Released from State or Federal Jurisdiction.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dtdata.htm#state prisoners. (Accessed November
6, 2003.) The 2001 figure comes from Paige M. Harrison and Jennifer C. Karberg. 2003. Prison and Jail
Prisoners at Midyear 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Statistics.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pjim02.pdf. (Accessed November 6, 2003.)
2
James Lynch and William Sabol. 2001. “Prisoner Reentry in Perspective.” Crime Policy Report, vol. 3.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
3
James Austin. 2001. “Prisoner Reentry: Current Trends, Practices, and Issues.” Crime and Delinquency
47(3): 314–34; Ted M. Hammett, Cheryl Roberts, and Sofia Kennedy. 2001. “Health-Related Issues in
Prisoner Reentry.” Crime and Delinquency 47(3): 390–409; Lynch and Sabol. 2001. “Prisoner Reentry in
Perspective.”
4
For an in-depth discussion of prisoner reentry nationwide, see Jeremy Travis, Amy Solomon, and
Michelle Waul. 2001. From Prison to Home: The Dimensions and Consequences of Prisoner Reentry.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
5
Lynch and Sabol. 2001. “Prisoner Reentry in Perspective.”
6
Ibid.
7
Criminal Justice Policy Council. 2003. “State Incarceration.” In Statistical Tables: State Incarceration.
Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council; Paige Harrison. 2000. Sentenced Prisoners Released from
State or Federal Jurisdiction. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
8
Urban Institute analysis of 2001 data provided by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Statistics on
where released Texas prisoners returned are based on cases for which state information was available
(55,156 of 55,182). Of the 55,156 cases for which we had state information, county information was
available for 54,645 releasees. We then used mapping software to analyze the geographic distribution of
those prisoners returning to Harris County; of the 14,129 prisoners returning to Harris County, 6,594 (47
percent) had viable zip codes identified by our mapping software.
9
Office of Justice Programs. 2003. State Activities and Resources: Texas. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reentry/sar/tx.html. (Accessed
October 26, 2003.)
10
Peter Finn. 1988. “Texas’s Project RIO.” Program in Focus, p. 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
11
State Jail Division. 2002. “A New Corrections Initiative for Texas.” Austin: Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, State Jail Division.
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/publications/state-jail/SJD-new-corrections-initiative.PDF. (Accessed January 2,
2004.)
12
The information described in this section is based on the following three sources: (1) Paul Hudson. 1998.
The State Jail System Today. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council, September. (2) State Jail
Division. 2003. “The State Jail System—A New Corrections Initiative for Texas.” Austin: Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, State Jail Division. http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/statejail/stjailsytembroc.htm. (Accessed November 26, 2003.) (3) Criminal Justice Policy Council. 2003. “State Jail
Releases, Fiscal Years 1996–2002.” In Statistical Tables: Parole and Time Served. Austin, TX: Criminal
Justice Policy Council.
13
Between 1925 and 1973, the per capita rate of imprisonment in the United States remained relatively
constant, at about 110 per 100,000 residents. Since 1973, however, the rate of imprisonment has been
steadily increasing each year. (See Al Blumstein and Allen J. Beck. 1999. “Population Growth in U.S.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
83
Prisons, 1980–1996.” In Prisons, edited by Michael Tonry and Joan Petersilia (26):361–426. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.) By year-end 2001, the number of sentenced prisoners per 100,000 U.S.
residents was 470—more than four times the rate of imprisonment that had been maintained during the
early part of the 20th century. (See Paige Harrison and Allen J. Beck. 2002. “Prisoners in 2001.” Bureau of
Justice Statistics Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.)
14
The fiscal year 1980 statistic is based on the total number of felons in state prisons. (Source: Texas
Department of Correction. 1980. 1980 Fiscal Year Statistical Report. Huntsville: Texas Department of
Correction, Research and Development.) The fiscal year 2002 statistic is based on the total number of
felons in state prisons, state jails, Substance Abuse Felony Punishment programs, boot camps, and county
jails. Please note that state jails, Substance Abuse Felony Punishment programs, and boot camps were not
in existence in fiscal year 1980. (Sources: Criminal Justice Policy Council. 2003. “TDCJ State Incarcerated
Population, Fiscal Years 1988 to 2002.” In Statistical Tables: State Incarceration, p. 7. Austin, TX:
Criminal Justice Policy Council; Criminal Justice Policy Council. 2003. “Prison Felons in County Jails,
Fiscal Years 1992 to 2002.” In Statistical Tables: County Jail, p. 2. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy
Council.)
15
Data sources include the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice Policy Council, and the
U.S. Census Bureau.
16
Paige M. Harrison and Allen J. Beck. 2003. “Prisoners in 2002.” Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, p.
1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
17
Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 2003. “Unit Directory.” Austin: Texas Department of Criminal
Justice. http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/directory/unit-profiles/dir-units-list.htm. (Accessed March 19, 2003.)
18
Ibid.
19
Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 2000. Closing of a Millennium: Reviewing the Past Decade, p. 8.
Huntsville: Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Financial Services Division.
20
For 1990 data, see Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 2000. Closing of a Millennium: Reviewing the
Past Decade, p. 8. Huntsville: Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Financial Services Division. For 2000
data, see Criminal Justice Policy Council. 1999. “Operating and Construction Expenditures in the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Fiscal Years 1988 to 2002.” In Statistical Tables: Funding and Cost per
Day, p. 6. Austin: Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council.
21
Sidra L. Gifford. 2002. “Justice Expenditures and Employment in the United States, 1999.” Bureau of
Justice Statistics Bulletin, p. 5. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
22
Center for Public Priorities. 2003. “Texas Criminal Justice/Corrections Facts.”
http://www.cppp.org/products/fastfacts/crimjust.html. (Accessed July 27, 2003.)
23
The information presented in this paragraph comes from the following source unless otherwise specified:
State Research Center. 1994. “Chronology of Texas Prison Reform 1972 to 1994,” p. 5. Austin, TX: State
Research Center.
24
Under a settlement that was part of a lawsuit, Ruiz v. Estelle, TDCJ was prohibited from exceeding 95
percent of facilities’ bed capacities as of 1985; thus, TDCJ housed prisoners in county facilities until beds
became available. Due to the persistent reliance on county beds, however, 12 counties sued TDCJ, and in
1991, the court ordered TDCJ to pay fines for state inmates held in the county jail that accrued to over $667
million between 1990 and 1999. As a result, legislation was passed that required TDCJ to house state
inmates in prison at least 45 days after their commitment paperwork was filed.
25
Crime is measured by the number of violent and property crimes reported to the police and provided by
the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting System Part I Index of violent and property offenses. Violent index
crimes include murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. It is
referred to here as “serious” because it does not include non-aggravated assaults and other less serious
violent offenses. Property index crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Data for
other crimes, most notably drug crimes, are not available. The information presented in this section comes
from the following source unless otherwise specified: Criminal Justice Policy Council. 2002. Statistical
Tables: Crime in Texas. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.
26
Criminal Justice Policy Council. 2002. “Adult Population and Arrests in Texas, Fiscal Years 1990 to
2001.” In Statistical Tables: Arrests, p. 1. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.
27
Violent crime and admissions for violent offenses are defined similarly, but admissions for violent crimes
encompass more violent offense types than the definition for violent crimes and arrests do. Specifically,
violent offenses for admissions include homicide, kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery, and assault. Violent
84
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
crime is defined in the same way except that it does not include non-aggravated assaults and sexual
assaults. This difference in definitions is likely to produce notable differences in the two resulting statistics
since non-aggravated assault is generally a commonly occuring offense. Still, a comparison of the trends is
important in developing a general picture of the relevant patterns occurring in Texas.
28
The definitions of property crimes and property admissions both include burglary, larceny, theft, and
motor vehicle theft. Unlike property admissions, property crimes do not include arson, forgery/counterfeit,
and fraud (data on crimes related to these offenses were unavailable); and because arrests for these offense
types are likely to occur in substantial numbers, the comparability between property crime trends and
property arrest and admission trends is reduced.
29
Arrest statistics presented here are for adults 17 years old or older because nearly all the TDCJ prison
population is made up of individuals age 17 and older. The Urban Institute’s analysis of TDCJ data
revealed that no prisoners reentering the community in 2001 were younger than 17 years of age. However,
people as young as 14 years old can be tried as adults in Texas. (Source: Public Broadcasting Service.
“Frontline: Juvenile Justice Facts and Stats.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/juvenile/stats/states.html. [Accessed October 13, 2003.])
30
These data come from Texas Department of Public Safety’s Texas Arrest Data provided in their annual
Texas Crime Report (years 1988 to 2001).
31
Violent arrests include murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault,
and other assaults. Violent arrests include all violent offenses—not only violent offenses as defined by
FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports—in order to increase the comparability of the arrest trends to admission
trends. These two categories are defined in the same way violent admissions also include kidnapping and
all sexual assaults (not just forcible rape); this difference is expected to have minimal impact on the
findings since few arrests for kidnapping and other sexual assaults are expected to take place.
32
Drug arrests and admissions are defined in the same way: they both include drug offenses related to the
possession or distribution of drugs.
33
Property arrests and property admissions are defined in the same way; they both include burglary,
larceny, theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, forgery/counterfeit, and fraud. Property crimes, however, do not
include arson, forgery/counterfeit, and fraud; and because arrests for these offense types are likely to occur
in substantial numbers, the comparability between property crime trends and property arrest and admission
trends is reduced.
34
The American Civil Liberties Union. 2002. Too Far Off Task. Austin, TX: The American Civil Liberties
Union of Texas.
35
Ibid.
36
During the mid-1990s to 2002, a greater percentage of cases received deferred adjudication dispositions
for all offense types except driving while intoxicated, which had stable conviction rates. The Criminal
Justice Policy Council defines deferred adjudication as “a postponement of entering a finding of guilt,
where the offender undergoes a term of community supervision that, if completed successfully, will prevent
a final conviction from appearing on the offender’s record.” (Source: Criminal Justice Policy Council.
2003. “Total Adult Convictions and Deferred Adjudications for All Felony Offenses, Fiscal Years 1988–
2002.” In Statistical Tables: Court Convictions. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.)
37
The information provided in this section comes from Criminal Justice Policy Council. 2003. Statistical
Tables: State Incarceration. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.
38
Unless otherwise specified, the information provided in this section comes from Criminal Justice Policy
Council. 2003. Statistical Tables: Parole and Time Served. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.
39
The source for national information described in this paragraph is Timothy A. Hughes, Doris James
Wilson, and Allen J. Beck. 2001. “Trends in State Parole, 1990–2000.” Bureau of Justice Statistics Special
Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
40
The length of a prisoner’s sentence, which is the term of imprisonment meted out by the court, does not
necessarily correspond to the actual time served in prison (i.e., prisoners usually serve less time than their
court-ordered sentence lengths).
41
The Criminal Justice Policy Council explains that nonviolent offenders “include those convicted of all
property offenses (except first degree burglary of a habitation), DWI, drug offenses, motor vehicle theft,
and other miscellaneous offenses.” The Criminal Justice Policy Council defines violent offenders as
“offenders convicted of: homicide, kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery, assault, burglary of a habitat with
the intent to commit a felony other than theft, indecency with a child, and offenders convicted of a 3g
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
85
offense (which are aggravated offenses as defined by Article 42.12, Section 3g of the Texas Code of
Criminal Procedures).” According to the Criminal Justice Policy Council, aggravated crimes are the most
serious violent offenses and include “capital murder, murder, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated
kidnapping, aggravated robbery, indecency with a child, sexual assault, use of a deadly weapon, and any
other offense with an affirmative weapon finding.” See “Time Served in Prison for All Release Types:
Violent Offenders, Fiscal Years 1988 to 2002.” Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.
42
There are several reasons for these changes in sentence length. From 1988 to 1994, the number of
convicted felons in county jails awaiting transfer to TDCJ facilities grew significantly, peaking at 26,100
felons in 1993. Many of these felons were released from county jails under parole in absentia and were
never admitted to prison. These prisoners often had shorter sentences; consequently, the average sentence
length of those admitted to prison grew. In 1995, when TDCJ had enough bed space to accommodate most
felons ready for transfer to TDCJ, the sentence length dropped dramatically. Although prisoners received
increasingly longer sentences between 1998 and 2002, the growing population of confinees (less serious
offenders) received shorter sentences and thereby moderated the overall length of sentence for all prisoners.
43
For this analysis, the sentence length of confinees is used also as their time served because time-served
data are not available. This approximation is estimated to be accurate in all but 2 percent of confinee
releases who did not complete their entire sentence as a result of shock probation.
44
Sentencing judges can expedite a prisoner’s release through shock probation, which allows him to
complete his sentence in the community while supervised under Regular Felony Probation and while
complying with certain requirements. Confinees are eligible for shock probation at any time during their
incarceration while state prisoners are eligible only during their first 180 days in prison. Prisoners may be
considered for shock probation if they are eligible for Regular Felony Probation or State Felony Jail
Probation, are serving a sentence of ten years or less, and have not been incarcerated previously for a
felony offense.
45
Paula M. Ditton and Doris James Wilson. 1999. “Truth in Sentencing in State Prisons.” Bureau of Justice
Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
46
For a complete listing of the required percentage of time served for each offender type and eligibility
requirements, refer to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice website,
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/publications/parole/parole_in_tx/pit-par-man-sup.htm. (Accessed July 9, 2003.)
A Criminal Justice Policy Council report explains that a primary goal guiding some major prisoner-related
changes in the 1990s was “to increase the percent of sentence served in prison for violent offenders.”
(Source: Michelle Munson. 2000. “Goal Met: Violent Offenders in Texas Are Serving a Higher Percentage
of Their Prison Sentences.” Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.)
47
In 1987, the legislature lowered parole eligibility from one-third of a prisoner’s sentence length to onequarter in response to an increasing backlog of TDCJ prisoners in county jail facilities. (Source: Senate
Research Center. 1994. “Chronology of Texas Prison Reform 1972 to 1994,” p. 8. Austin, TX: Senate
Research Center.)
48
Paula M. Ditton and Doris James Wilson. 1999. “Truth in Sentencing in State Prisons.” Bureau of Justice
Statistics Special Report, p. 2. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
49
Criminal Justice Policy Council. 2003. Statistical Tables: Parole and Time Served. Austin, TX: Criminal
Justice Policy Council.
50
Between 1993 and 2003, the percentage of sentence served increased from 40 to 75 percent for prisoners
who had committed violent offenses, from 43 to 81 percent for those who committed aggravated offenses,
and from 24 to 52 percent for those who committed nonviolent offenses.
51
Unless otherwise specified, the information provided in this section comes from Criminal Justice Policy
Council. 2003. “Parole Approval Rates, Fiscal Years 1988–2002.” In Statistical Tables: Parole and Time
Served, p.1. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.
52
The number of parole-eligible releases is equal to all TDCJ releases minus confinees and death-sentenced
prisoners because they are ineligible for parole. In 1988, there were 33,428 TDCJ releases, no confinees,
and 258 death-row prisoners; in 2002, there were 58,949 TDCJ releases, 21,325 confinee releases, and 449
death-row prisoners.
53
As part of most legislative sessions since 1987, Texas legislators have rendered some violent and
aggravated offenders ineligible for good-conduct time. Also, when creating the state jail felon category,
legislators decided to make confinees ineligible for good-conduct time given that they would receive
relatively short sentences.
86
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
54
Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 2003. “General Information Guide for Families: Good-Conduct
Time.” http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/publications/offender_family_guide/offguide-goodcondct.htm.
(Accessed December 31, 2003.)
55
As of September 1, 1996, the Board of Pardons and Paroles assumed discretion over whether a prisoner
receives earned good-behavior credits. Prior to 1996, all eligible prisoners were released automatically to
mandatory supervision. The Board approves approximately half of the cases considered.
56
Unless otherwise specified, all information in this chapter draws from a TDCJ data file containing
information about those prisoners released from TDCJ custody to the community in 2001 or from Criminal
Justice Policy Council statistical tables and reports available on the agency’s website at
http://www.cjpc.state.tx.us/.
57
The total number of prisoners released from TDCJ in 2001 presented in this report (55,183) differs from
the total number of prisoners that the Criminal Justice Policy Council (CJPC) reports to have been released
from TDCJ custody in 2001 (61,548). The likely explanation for the difference is that the cohort analyzed
by the Urban Institute does not include prisoners not released from TDCJ custody to the community,
including those released from TDCJ custody to the custody of another authority (such as Immigration and
Naturalization Services or another correctional facility), those who died or were executed, those who
escaped, or those who were released only temporarily (for such reasons as the need for medical care or to
attend a relative’s funeral) in 2001. The total number of prisoners who were excluded for these reasons is
approximately 7,018. The fact that the cohort analyzed by CJPC was drawn from fiscal year 2001, while
the cohort analyzed by the Urban Institute is drawn from calendar year 2001, may also explain part of the
difference between the two statistics.
58
Per conversation with TDCJ’s Community Supervision and Corrections Department staff on November
26, 2003, Texas prisoners who are released to probation, parole, or mandatory supervision must remain in
Texas until another state agrees to assume responsibility for supervising the prisoner in the community due
to the interstate compact.
59
Following the procedure employed by the Criminal Justice Policy Council, life sentences and sentences
of more than 60 years are calculated as 60-year sentences.
60
Patrick Langan and David Levin. 2002. “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994.” Bureau of Justice
Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
61
Criminal Justice Policy Council. 2002. “Two- and Three-Year Recidivism Rates for Offenders Released
from Prison.” In Statistical Tables: Recidivism Rates, p. 1. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.
62
Criminal Justice Policy Council. 2002. “Recidivism Rates of Confinees.” In Statistical Tables:
Recidivism Rates, p. 7. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.
63
The reasons for reincarceration (technical violations of supervision conditions or new crimes) are not
available.
64
Laura M. Maruschak and Allen J. Beck. 2001. “Medical Problems of Prisoners, 1997.” Bureau of Justice
Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
65
CJPC defined elderly as age 55 and older because “Offenders in prison generally have the health
problems of people ten years older in the general population; therefore age 55 is considered elderly in the
prison population.” CJPC found that elderly prisoners are being admitted in higher numbers and also tend
to have longer sentences and therefore are incarcerated for longer periods than the average prisoner.
(Source: Criminal Justice Policy Council. 2003. “Elderly Prisoners (Ages 55 & Older) in the Prison
Population.” In Statistical Tables: Programs and Special Populations. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy
Council.)
66
Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 1999. Fiscal Year 2000 Agency Budget, p. 4. Austin: Texas
Department of Criminal Justice.
67
Laura M. Maruschak. 2001. “HIV in Prisons, 2000.” Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, p. 1.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
68
Ibid.
69
UTMB manages the administration of medication at 80 percent of all TDCJ facilities; Texas Tech
University manages the rest.
70
Mike Ward and Bill Bishop. 2001. “A New HIV: Some Convicts Back in Free World with Altered Virus
Strain.” Austin American-Statesman, December 17.
71
TDCJ does not maintain comprehensive, electronically accessible data on the health care needs of and
range of services available to all prisoners under its supervision.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
87
72
For more information about the health needs of returning prisoners nationwide, see National Commission
on Correctional Health Care. 2002. The Health Status of Soon-to-Be-Released Inmates: A Report to
Congress, volume 1. Chicago: National Commission on Correctional Health Care.
73
These totals do not include those prisoners who have a mental health issue but declined treatment, do not
meet the requirements for active case management, or are not exhibiting any symptoms currently although
they have experienced a mental illness previously. (Source: Criminal Justice Policy Council. 2001. “Texas
Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division Mental Health Caseload 1988 and 1998.” In
Statistical Tables: Programs and Special Populations, p. 4. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.)
74
Ibid.
75
Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 1999. Fiscal Year 2000 Agency Budget, p. 4. Austin: Texas
Department of Criminal Justice.
76
All information provided in this paragraph is based on the following source: Criminal Justice Policy
Council. 2002. “Overview of the Enhanced Mental Health Services Initiative,” p. 6. Austin, TX: Criminal
Justice Policy Council.
77
See Douglas Lipton, Robert Martinson, and Judith Wilks. 1975. The Effectiveness of Correctional
Treatment: A Survey of Treatment Evaluation Studies. New York: Praeger; Robert Martinson. 1974. “What
Works? Questions and Answers about Prison Reform.” The Public Interest (35): 22–45; Lee Sechrest,
Susan White, and Elizabeth Brown, eds. 1979. The Rehabilitation of Criminal Offenders: Problems and
Prospects. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science; David F. Greenberg. 1977. “The Correctional
Effects of Corrections: A Survey of Evaluations.” In Corrections and Punishment, edited by David F.
Greenberg (111-148). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications; William E. Wright and Michael C. Dixon. 1977.
“Community Prevention and Treatment of Juvenile Delinquents.” Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency 14(35-67): 35–67; J. Robison, and G. Smith. 1971. “The Effectiveness of Correctional
Programs.” Crime and Delinquency 17(1): 67–80.
78
See Sarah Lawrence, Daniel Mears, Glenn Dubin, and Jeremy Travis. 2002. The Practice and Promise of
Prison Programming. Research Report. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute; Gerald Gaes, Timothy S.
Flanagan, Laurence L. Motiuk, and Lynn Stewart. 1999. “Adult Correctional Treatment.” In Prisons, edited
by Michael Tonry and Joan Petersilia (26):361–426. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; David B.
Wilson, Catherine A. Gallagher, and Doris L. MacKenzie. 2000. “A Meta-Analysis of Corrections-Based
Education, Vocation, and Work Programs for Adult Offenders.” Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency 37(4): 347–68; Mark Lipsey. 1999. “Can Intervention Rehabilitate Serious Delinquents?” The
Annals of the American Academy 564: 142–66; Frank S. Pearson and Douglas S. Lipton. 1999. “MetaAnalytic Review of the Effectiveness of Corrections-Based Treatments for Drug Abuse.” Prison Journal
79(4): 384–410; Mark W. Lipsey and David B. Wilson. 1998. “Effective Interventions for Serious Juvenile
Offenders: A Synthesis of Research.” In Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and
Successful Interventions, edited by Rolf Loeber and David P. Farrington (313-345). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications; Don A. Andrews, Ivan Zinger, Robert D. Hoge, James Bonta, Paul Gendreau, and
Francis T. Cullen. 1990. “Does Correctional Treatment Work? A Clinically Relevant and Psychologically
Informed Meta-Analysis.” Criminology 28: 369–404.
79
Refers to prisoners scheduled to be released in the next 12 months. Lynch and Sabol. 2001. “Prisoner
Reentry in Perspective.”
80
Ibid.
81
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2000. Correctional Populations in the United States, 1997. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice.
82
TDCJ’s fiscal year 2000 budget reports that $164,952,615 was allocated for the main categories of
institutional prisoner programs. Additional TDCJ funds are devoted to other programs and services for
TDCJ prisoners (such as prisoner law libraries), but the total amount of funds devoted to these purposes
was unclear. WSD reports $76,430,973 was expended for educational programs in fiscal year 2000. The
TDCJ budget totals are based on budget allocations in contrast to the Windham School District budget
totals, which are based on expenditures; the expected difference between TDCJ’s allocated budget and
actual expenditures is expected to be minimal.
83
Per conversation with Windham School District staff member on February 6, 2004.
84
Ibid.
85
For the other areas cut in the biennial decrease, 26 percent was due to the removal of the contract
capacity bed requirements; over 21 percent was due to cuts in funding for support staff and for food,
88
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
utilities, and building maintenance for housing offenders (no correctional officer positions were
eliminated); and almost 18 percent involved cuts in administrative and information technology functions.
(Source: Per TDCJ staff on February 20, 2004.)
86
TDCJ’s operating budget in fiscal year 2003 was $5,094,996,780; it is $4,840,246,524 in fiscal year
2004. (Source: Per TDCJ staff on February 20, 2004.)
87
The number of potential participants equals 199,624, the total on-hand population at the end of the fiscal
year 2002 (125,937 state prisoners and 14,738 confinees) plus the number of prisoners released in fiscal
year 2002 (37,624 state prisoners and 21,325 confinees).
88
This chapter does not discuss several other TDCJ programs that target special populations, such as
youthful offenders, due to space limitations; however, the programs listed represent the main universe of
programs at TDCJ.
89
Karl O. Haigler, Caroline Harlow, Patricia O’Connor, and Anne Campbell. 1994. “Literacy behind
Prison Walls” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
NCES-1994-102.
90
The general population includes the noninstitutional population over the age of 18. Caroline W. Harlow.
2003. “Education and Correctional Populations.” Bureau of Justice Statistics Report, p. 2. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
91
These data are not available for state jail felons.
92
A prisoner who is functionally illiterate has an educational achievement score of less than 6.0.
Educational achievement scores are calculated using the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE). Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. 2003. Texas Department of Criminal Justice Fiscal Year 2002 Statistical
Report, pp. 11, 16, 24. Huntsville: Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
93
Prison population includes prison, state jail, and Substance Abuse Felony Punishment facilities. Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. 2002. Texas Department of Criminal Justice Fiscal Year 2002 Statistical
Summary. Huntsville: Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
94
Windham School District staff provided the estimate of program capacity.
95
Martinez, Alma I., and Michael Eisenberg. 2000. Educational Achievement of Inmates in the Windham
School District, p. i. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council. Also, per conversation with WSD staff
on February 17, 2004.
96
Unless otherwise stated, all information for the Windham School District was obtained from the
following report: Windham School District. 2002. Windham School District Annual Report. Huntsville:
Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
97
All information on the COPE program was found in Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. 1998. Parole in Texas. Austin: Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and
Texas Department of Criminal Justice. http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/publications/parole/parole_in_tx/pithome.htm. (Accessed January 2, 2004.)
98
Julie Cook. 2003. Mangos to Mangos: Comparing the Cost of Juvenile and Adult Correctional Programs
in Texas, p. 40. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.
99
Jeremy Travis. 2002. “Invisible Punishment: An Instrument of Social Exclusion.” In Invisible
Punishment: the Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment, edited by Marc Mauer and Meda
Chesney-Lind, p. 22. New York: New Press.
100
Bruce Western. 2003. “Incarceration, Employment and Public Policy.” Paper prepared for the Third
Reentry Roundtable, April 2003. http://www.njisj.org/reports/western_report.html. (Accessed August 11,
2003.)
101
See figure 3.1 for a breakdown of program admission numbers for fiscal year 2003. Texas Department
of Criminal Justice. 2003. Texas Department of Criminal Justice Fiscal Year 2002 Statistical Report, pp.
30–31. Huntsville: Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
102
Some prisoners who participated in multiple programs may have been counted more than once in this
total.
103
Unless otherwise noted, information on employment programs administered in correctional facilities is
obtained from Windham School District. 2002. Windham School District Annual Performance Report
2001–2002: Schools in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, pp. 5–8. Huntsville: Texas Department
of Criminal Justice; Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 2003. Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Statistical Summary Fiscal Year 2002, pp. 30–31. Huntsville: Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
89
104
Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 2002. Windham School District Annual Performance Report
2001–2002: Schools in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, pp. 3, 5–6. Huntsville: Texas
Department of Criminal Justice.
105
The selection and structure of the courses offered depends on the projected employment opportunities
for prisoners and industry standards.
106
Texas Department of Criminal Justice State Jail Division. 2001. “A New Corrections Initiative for
Texas.” Austin: Texas Department of Criminal Justice. http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/publications/statejail/SJD-new-corrections-initiative.PDF. (Accessed November 1, 2003.)
107
Information provided by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Parole Division, Open Records
Division, September 25, 2003.
108
Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. 2002. 2001–2002 Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles Annual
Report, p. 157. Austin: Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles.
109
Texas Work Commission Project RIO staff certifies prospective employees for the Work Opportunity
Tax Credit program that provides a tax incentive to employers for hiring economically disadvantaged exoffenders.
110
Alan Beck. 2000. State and Federal Prisoners Returning to the Community: Findings from the Bureau
of Justice Statistics. Paper presented at the First Reentry Courts Initiative Cluster Meeting, Washington,
DC, April 13, 2000. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/sfprc.pdf. (Accessed December 30, 2003.) Also
see Christopher Mumola. 1999. Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ 172871.
111
Ibid.
112
Jane Carlisle Maxwell. 1998. Substance Abuse and Crime in Texas, p. 7. Austin: Texas Commission on
Alcohol and Drug Abuse.
113
TDCJ reports that 281,267 prisoners attended AA, NA, or SOS programs in fiscal year 2002; given that
this number is more than double the prison population as a whole, the figure clearly reflects a large number
of duplicate prisoners who participated in multiple programs or on repeated occasions.
114
Unless otherwise noted, all data on the IPTC, PRSAP, PRTC, and SAFP programs are drawn from
Michael Eisenberg. 2003. The Second Biennial Report on the Performance of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice Rehabilitation Tier Programs. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.
115
The CJPC reports that the success rate of the IPTC program has improved since 1994 when a more
accurate screening process was put in place and when the use of intermediate sanction facilities as an
alternative to reincarceration became more frequent (thereby returning fewer parolees to prison). Current
completion rates are not available, however.
116
In 2003, SAFP sentences were reduced from between 9 and 12 months to 6 months.
117
Michael Eisenberg. 2003. The Second Biennial Report on the Performance of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice Rehabilitation Tier Programs, p. ii. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.
118
Program components include 9 to 12 months of institutional programming, 3 months of residential
programming, and 6 to 9 months of outpatient care. (Source: Criminal Justice Policy Council. 2002.
“Report to the Senate Criminal Justice Interim Committee: Recidivism Rates and Issues Related to TDCJ
Substance Abuse Treatment Programs, March 2002.” In Adult Correctional and Rehabilitation
Programs/Recidivism, p. 8. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.)
119
Carole Keaton Rylander. 2000. “Chapter 11: Improve Correctional Substance Abuse Treatment.”
Recommendations of the Texas Comptroller. http://www.e-texas.org/recommend/ch11/psc05.html.
(Accessed June 5, 2003.) And see Gerald Gaes, Timothy J. Flanagan, Laurence L. Motiuk, and Lynn
Stewart. 1999. “Adult Correctional Treatment.” In Prisons, Criminal Justice: A Review of Research, edited
by Michael Tonry and Joan Petersilia (361–426). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
120
“The ‘estimated yearly population served’ is based on the average length of stay (ALS) in inpatient
programs.” (Source: Criminal Justice Policy Council. 2001. “Prisoner Substance Abuse Treatment Program
Bed Capacity for Adult Offenders in Texas.” In Statistical Tables: Programs and Special Populations, p. 1.
Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.)
121
Criminal Justice Policy Council. 2001. “Outpatient Substance Abuse Treatment and Other Programs for
Adult Prisoners in Texas.” In Statistical Tables: Programs and Special Populations, p. 2. Austin, TX:
Criminal Justice Policy Council.
90
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
122
Criminal Justice Policy Council. 2001. “Prisoner Substance Abuse Treatment Program Bed Capacity for
Adult Offenders in Texas.” In Statistical Tables: Programs and Special Populations, p. 1. Austin, TX:
Criminal Justice Policy Council.
123
Criminal Justice Policy Council. 2001. “Outpatient Substance Abuse Treatment and Other Programs for
Adult Prisoners in Texas.” In Statistical Tables: Programs and Special Populations, p. 2. Austin, TX:
Criminal Justice Policy Council.
124
Allen J. Beck. 2001. “Mental Health Treatment in State Prisons.” Bureau of Justice Statistics Special
Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ 188215.
125
The official figure for patients under mental health care in the prison population may not accurately
reflect the number of prisoners suffering from mental illness. This number does not reflect undiagnosed
prisoners, patients who refuse treatment, or patients with a history of mental illness who do not display
symptoms and are therefore not treated. (Source: Criminal Justice Policy Council. 2001. “Texas
Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division Mental Health Caseload, 1988 and 1998.” In
Statistical Tables: Programs and Special Populations, p. 4. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.)
126
Ibid.
127
Ibid.
128
Mental health staff may evaluate prisoners for potential mental health problems and diagnoses of mental
illness, determine which method(s) of treatment will be most effective and beneficial to prisoners, or
provide access to mental health services for prisoners who send a sick call request (SCR) or an I-60. Access
to services includes crisis intervention and “follow-up” appointments. Treatment may also be provided to
mentally ill prisoners and can include medication. (Source: Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
“Offender Handbook, 2003.” Huntsville: Texas Department of Criminal Justice.)
129
Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 2003. Fiscal Year 2002 Statistical Report. Huntsville: Texas
Department of Criminal Justice.
130
Per TDCJ staff, December 18, 2003.
131
Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 2003. “Unit Directory.” Huntsville: Texas Department of
Criminal Justice. http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/directory/unit-profiles/dir-units-list.htm. (Accessed October
26, 2003.)
132
In fiscal year 2002, 20,331 (16 percent) of those incarcerated in Texas prisons were incarcerated for
sexual assault or a sex offense. (Source: Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 2002. Fiscal Year 2002
Statistical Report. Huntsville: Texas Department of Criminal Justice.)
133
Only 5 percent of those sex offenders considered for parole in 2002 received approvals, and 91 percent
of all sex offenders are ineligible for mandatory supervision. The parole approval rates for sex offenders
were drawn from Criminal Justice Policy Council. 2003. “Fiscal Year 2002 Parole Approval Rates by
Offense Type.” In Statistical Tables: Parole and Time Served, p. 2. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy
Council. The mandatory supervision restrictions for sex offenders were drawn from Michael Eisenberg.
1996. The Impact of Tougher Incarceration Policies for Sex Offenders. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy
Council.
134
Michael Eisenberg. 2003. The Second Biennial Report on the Performance of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice Rehabilitation Tier Programs. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.
135
Ibid.
136
Byron R. Johnson and David B. Larson. 2003. “The InnerChange Freedom Initiative: A Preliminary
Evaluation of a Faith-Based Prison Program.” Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
137
Statistics in this section were provided by WSD staff on December 10, 2003.
138
Family Forward is a statewide organization whose mission is to strengthen families and promote family
stability through educational programs and support groups. Agency programs and services are provided
through various direct service affiliates and community referral partners throughout the state of Texas. For
more information, refer to Family Forward’s website at http://www.familyforward.org/. (Accessed
December 29, 2003.)
139
This statistic is based on the total number of felons held in state prisons and state jails as of August 31,
2002 (6,911 women and 118,744 men were held in state prisons, and 3,230 women and 11,472 men were
held in state jails at this time). This statistic does not include prisoners held in Substance Abuse Felony
Punishment facilities, boot camps, or county jails because information about the gender of these prisoners
was not available. (Source: Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 2003. Statistical Summary: Fiscal Year
2002, pp. 23, 38. Austin: Texas Department of Criminal Justice.)
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
91
140
Unless otherwise specified, all data presented in this section are the result of Urban Institute analysis of
Criminal Justice Policy Council data that are available on that agency’s website at
http://www.cjpc.tx.state.us/ or the following two documents: Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and
Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 1998. Parole in Texas. Austin: Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles
and Texas Department of Criminal Justice. http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/publications/parole/parole_in_tx/pithome.htm. (Accessed January 2, 2004.); Parole Division. 2002. History of Parole in Texas. Austin: Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Parole Division. http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/parole/parole-history.htm.
(Accessed May 28, 2003.)
141
In Texas, the sentencing judge can also approve discretionary release through shock probation, which
allows a prisoner to serve the remainder of his or her sentence in the community under felony probation.
142
Confinees released discretionarily through shock probation are not included in these percentages
because these totals are aggregated with other sentence types and cannot be disaggregated, per a
conversation with CJPC staff on June 9, 2003. However, CJPC staff explained that only a minimal
percentage of confinees are released through shock probation.
143
Due to the large number of prisoners considered for parole in Texas, a rare few appear before the panel
for review.
144
Prisoners who are sentenced to death or who are serving a sentence of life in prison without parole are
ineligible for all forms of release discussed in this chapter and are therefore not noted in remaining
sidebars.
145
The governor, with the Texas Senate’s approval, appoints the Board of Pardons and Paroles’ 18
members, each of whom serves a six-year term. Historically, the Board was responsible for both release
decisions and postrelease supervision. However, in 1989, the Texas legislature combined the Board and
TDCJ. The Board retained control over its discretion to approve parole, set the conditions of release, and
conduct parole violation proceedings, but TDCJ assumed responsibility for parole supervision and
enforcement.
146
The time for good conduct earned by some prisoners incarcerated for some types of aggravated offenses
does not count toward their parole-eligibility date.
147
Prior to 1987, all prisoners were eligible for parole when their time served and credits for good behavior
summed to one-third of their sentence length. In 1987, state legislation lowered the eligibility requirement
from completion of one-third of the sentence to one-quarter of the sentence. Then, in 1993, the state
legislature increased this requirement for some violent and aggravated offenders to one-third or to half of
the sentence length and let the one-quarter requirement stand for nonviolent offenders. (Source: Senate
Research Center. 1994. “Chronology of Texas Prison Reform 1972 to 1994,” p. 8. Austin, TX: Senate
Research Center.) For a complete listing of the required percentage of time served for each offender type
and eligibility requirements, see Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Texas Department of Criminal
Justice. 1998. Parole in Texas. Austin: Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Texas Department of
Criminal Justice. http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/publications/parole/parole_in_tx/pit-home.htm. (Accessed
January 2, 2004.)
148
Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. 2002. 2001–2002 Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles Annual
Report. Austin: Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles.
149
When considering approval for parole, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles takes into account the
following issues: “seriousness of the offense(s), sentence length and amount of time served, offender’s age,
juvenile history, criminal history (prior probation/parole), number of prison incarcerations, other arrests,
institutional adjustment, and letters of support and/or protest.” (Source: Texas Board of Pardons and
Paroles. 2003. “Parole/MS Information.” http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/bpp/what_is_parole/first_page.htm.
(Accessed December 10, 2003.)
150
The total number of parolees includes prisoners released through parole in absentia (prisoners released
to parole from non-TDCJ facilities).
151
State prisoners earn credits for good behavior by participating in programs and avoiding disciplinary
citations. Many state prisoners receive one day of credit for good behavior for each day served, but the
TDCJ Board may increase or decrease the amount of credit providing the minimum statutory requirements
for the offense are met.
152
For a full review of all offenses that prevent Texas prisoners from being eligible for parole or mandatory
supervision, see Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 1998.
92
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
Parole in Texas. Austin: Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/publications/parole/parole_in_tx/pit-home.htm. (Accessed January 2, 2004.)
153
For those state prisoners sentenced before September 1, 1996, TDCJ continues to award good-time
credits automatically. This mechanism for release is described under “Release to Mandatory Supervision.”
154
Per telephone conversation with Criminal Justice Policy Council staff on July 8, 2003.
155
State prisoners sentenced on or before September 1, 1996, are released automatically (not
discretionarily) to mandatory supervision when their credits for good behavior and time served sum to their
sentence length (mandatory supervision); those sentenced after this date may be denied mandatory
supervision release by the Board of Pardons and Paroles (discretionary mandatory supervision). Currently,
half of all mandatory supervision releases are discretionary: in 2002, 8,945 state prisoners were released
through DMS and 8,407 were released through MS.
156
Prisoners released from boot camps or those who received split sentences or a probation modification
sentence receive probation supervision upon release. For an overview of boot camps, please refer to
Research, Evaluation, and Development Unit. (n.d.) Boot Camp Analysis. Austin: Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, Research, Evaluation, and Development Unit. http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/. Split sentences
(also referred to as “up-front time”) are those that require both a period of incarceration and a period of
probation after release; probation modification differs from split sentences only in that the offender
receives the sentence for violating probation rather than a new offense. Offenders receive all three of these
types of sentences at the time of sentencing, and they are therefore not considered a discretionary form of
release.
157
CJPC reported the total number of confinees who were not classified to a release category. Between
2000 and 2002, the percentage of confinee releases who were unclassified totaled between 0.2 and 6.1
percent of all releases. The actual numbers of confinees in each category were estimated by applying the
percentage of each category to the total number of unclassified confinees.
158
The national statistic (77 percent) is based on the analysis of 2000 data. Timothy Hughes, Doris James
Wilson, and Allen J. Beck. 2001. “Trends in State Parole, 1990–2000.” Bureau of Justice Statistics Special
Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. See chapter 4 for further
detail on mandatory supervision.
159
For further details, see Criminal Justice Policy Council. 2003. “State Jail Releases, Fiscal Years 1988 to
2002.” In Statistical Tables: Parole and Time Served, p. 16. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.
160
The number of TDCJ releases totaled 33,428 in 1988 and 58,949 in 2002.
161
Most of Texas’s parolees (80,602) are on active parole supervision, meaning that they are required to
report directly to a parole officer. Inactive parolees could include those who are parole absconders,
“supervised out of state, deported, on detainer, in federal custody, and in out-of-state custody.” (Source:
Criminal Justice Policy Council. 2003. “Parole and Mandatory Supervision Populations, Fiscal Years 1988
to 2002.” In Statistical Tables: Parole and Time Served, p. 15. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy
Council.
162
The average caseload of parolees under intensive supervision was 23, and the average caseload of
parolees under super-intensive supervision was 15, per telephone conversation with Criminal Justice Policy
Council staff on July 8, 2003.
163
Prisoners not released through mandatory supervision or parole are given $100 immediately upon
release.
164
TDCJ’s PPTs include the Bridgeport (200 beds), Lockhart (500 beds), and Mineral Wells (2,100 beds),
per conversation with Criminal Justice Policy Council staff on July 15, 2003. Also see Texas Department
of Criminal Justice. 2003. Statistical Report Fiscal Year 2002, p. 1. Austin: Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Executive Services.
165
Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. 2002. 2001–2002 Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles Annual
Report, p. 157. Austin: Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles.
166
Information provided by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Parole Division, Open Records
Division, September 25, 2003.
167
Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. 2002. 2001–2002 Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles Annual
Report, p. 159. Austin: Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles.
168
Information provided by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Parole Division, Open Records
Division, September 25, 2003.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
93
169
When an ex-prisoner cannot cover his or her fines and fees, a manageable long-term payment plan is
developed. If the ex-prisoner refuses to pay these charges, then he or she may be required to participate in
community service or may be sentenced to jail. See Texas Senate News. 2000. “Senate Committee on
Criminal Justice Held Public Hearing at State Capitol.” Texas Senate News, April 18.
170
In 1985, the Texas legislature required that the Board of Pardons and Paroles develop guidelines to
assess parolees’ risk levels. At the recommendation of the Criminal Justice Policy Council and the National
Institute of Corrections, a consulting firm recently revised these guidelines; parole officers began using
them in 2001. (Source: Criminal Justice Policy Council. 2003. An Overview of Texas Parole Guidelines,
December 2001. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.)
171
For a full review of the requirements of each supervision level, refer to Texas Board of Pardons and
Paroles and Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 1998. Parole in Texas. Austin: Texas Board of Pardons
and Paroles and Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/publications/parole/parole_in_tx/pit-home.htm. (Accessed January 2, 2004.)
172
This national statistic comes from U.S. and state admissions in 1999, the most recent year that it is
available. In 1999, probation and parole revocations made up 56 percent of all TDCJ admissions. (Source:
Jeremy Travis and Sarah Lawrence. 2002. Beyond the Prison Gates: The State of Parole in America.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.)
173
The source of the information provided in this paragraph is: Fabelo, Tony. 2000. “Presentation to House
Corrections Committee: Parole Blue Warrant Process and Issues for Review.” Presented on July 11, 2000,
in Austin, TX. http://www.cjpc.state.tx.us/reports/parprob/BlueWarr6_00.pdf. (Accessed March 1, 2004.)
174
An extension of an additional month is possible.
175
Thirty-seven percent of all revocation hearings were due to technical violations.
176
Data that would indicate the frequency of time served in the community not counting toward the
sentence are not available.
177
Information provided by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Parole Division, Open Records
Division, September 25, 2003.
178
Unless otherwise noted in this chapter, the reported statistics are based on an Urban Institute analysis of
Texas Department of Criminal Justice data (please refer to the introduction for more information on these
data), including statistics that describe the state and counties to which prisoners returned following release.
The data set provided by TDCJ listed the return state for nearly all prisoners (55,156 of 55,183). Much of
the analysis in this chapter centers on those prisoners returning to Texas. Of the 55,156 prisoners whose
return state was recorded in the data set, 54,645 were listed to be returning to Texas. The state and county
to which the prisoner was returning was available for 65 percent of all prisoners in the data set; the state
and county of the remaining 35 percent of the prisoners were approximated by the state and county of
conviction. These data were unavailable for less than 1 percent of prisoners.
179
Please note that the information reported for “supervised releasees” does not include information for the
less than 2 percent of prisoners released to probation.
180
Per telephone conversation with staff of the Wayback House on February 19, 2004.
181
Per telephone conversation with staff of CSC, Inc., on February 19, 2004.
182
Per telephone conversation with staff of Salvation Army on February 19, 2004.
183
Per telephone conversation with staff of SCS, Inc., on February 19, 2004.
184
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Summary File 1 (SF-1). Profile of General Demographic Characteristics:
2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/24000.html. (Accessed November 11, 2003.); Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Labor Force Data by County, 2001 Annual Averages. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
185
Per telephone conversation with staff of the Reid facility on February 19, 2004.
186
Please note that this Harris County return rate differs from the Harris County return rate listed in figure
6.1 because this return rate is based only on ex-prisoners released to Harris County who are also supervised
and the latter rate is based on all ex-prisoners released to Harris County.
187
One-fifth of supervised releasees returning to Houston were married.
188
Lynch and Sabol. 2001. “Prisoner Reentry in Perspective”; Dina R. Rose and Todd R. Clear. 1998.
“Incarceration, Social Capital, and Crime: Implications for Social Disorganization Theory.” Criminology
(36):441–79; Dina R. Rose and Todd R. Clear. 2003. “Incarceration, Social Capital, and Crime:
Implications for Social Disorganization Theory.” In Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of Incarceration
94
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
and Reentry on Children, Families, and Communities, edited by Jeremy Travis and Michelle Waul (313342). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
189
Because the zip code 77004 spanned these two neighborhoods, we added their populations together to
calculate the number of returning prisoners per 1,000 residents. Both the Third Ward and MacGregor
contain parts of other zip codes that could increase the number (and rate) of returning prisoners.
Specifically, zip code 77021, which is part of the MacGregor neighborhood, received an estimated 162
returning prisoners. However, since most of this zip code is not in the MacGregor neighborhood, we cannot
be sure how many of the 162 prisoners actually returned to MacGregor. This same logic was applied to
another zip code (77016) that spanned two neighborhoods—East Little York/Homestead and
Trinity/Houston Gardens.
190
Elycia Daniel, a doctoral student at Sam Houston University, compiled the information on social
services in Houston that targeted ex-offenders. Ms. Daniel began by searching the “Ex-Offender/Prisoner”
category in the 211 Texas database, a comprehensive database of social services in Texas compiled by the
United Way. Ms. Daniel also located resources through the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse
treatment service locator available on the agency’s website at http://www.tcada.state.tx.us/. In addition, she
performed an Internet-based search across related categories, including shelters, transitional living centers,
rehabilitation programs, and ex-prisoner programs. Additional services were located through a TDCJ
chaplain who was able to provide a list of churches in Houston that offer spiritual and other types of
support to ex-offenders. Ms. Daniel also reviewed the Houston telephone book for other programs and
services for prisoners, such as rehabilitation and counseling services. Ms. Daniel contacted TDCJ staff in
Huntsville, who reported that no community resource list was available.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
95
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
90
APPENDIX A
Comparison of Characteristics of Ex-prisoners
Returning to Harris County by Postrelease Supervision
(or Availability of Zip Code Data)
Chi-square tests of each variable demonstrated a statistically significant correlation with
postrelease supervision (p < .05).
Postrelease supervision
(zip-code data available)
N
%
No postrelease supervision
(no zip-code data available)
N
%
Gender
Male
Female
5,784
809
87.7
12.3
6,467
1,069
85.8
14.2
Race
Black
White
Hispanic
3,095
2,950
542
46.9
44.7
8.2
3,288
2,877
1,349
43.6
38.2
17.9
8
0.1
28
0.4
Marital status
Single
Married
Separated
4,648
1,509
321
71.8
23.3
5.0
5,311
1,407
342
75.2
19.9
4.8
Offense
Property
Drug
Violent
DWI
Other
Weapons
2,222
2,211
1,115
620
299
125
33.7
33.5
16.9
9.4
4.5
1.9
2,482
2,884
1,303
371
345
107
32.9
38.3
17.3
4.9
4.6
1.4
Sentence length
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
2 to 3 years
3 to 5 years
5 to 10 years
over 10 years
0
813
579
1,333
2,013
1,855
--12.3
8.8
20.2
30.5
28.1
1,747
2,098
445
821
1,124
1,228
23.4
28.1
6.0
11.0
15.1
16.5
Time Served
less than 20%
20% to 40%
40% to 60%
60% to 80%
80% to 100%
219
1,563
2,933
1,217
661
3.3
23.7
44.5
18.5
10.0
2,991
999
1,727
615
1,025
40.7
13.6
23.5
8.4
13.9
Other/unknown
Source: Urban Institute analysis of TDCJ data.
Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
97
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
98
APPENDIX B
Overview of Probation
Prisoners can be released to probation via a split sentence, shock probation, boot camp, or
probation modification.1 The sentencing judge sets the conditions of release and TDCJ’s
Community Justice Assistance Division (CJAD) oversees 121 local departments (called
Community Supervision and Corrections Departments, which are overseen by the local judiciary)
that are spread throughout Texas’s 254 counties and that supervise probationers.2 The total
percentage of all TDCJ prisoners released to probation has remained relatively low for the past
decade; in 1988, close to 3 percent (or 997 of 38,041) of all TDCJ prisoners were released to
probation compared to slightly more than 2 percent in 2002 (1,512 of 58,949).
CASELOADS
From 1988 to 1994, Texas’s felony, direct supervision probation population increased markedly
(by 65 percent, from 92,311 to 152,624) and then largely leveled off, totaling 158,493 in 2002.3
On average, a probation officer is responsible for 116 direct-supervision probationers (data on the
average caseload at earlier dates are not available).4 A probation officer with a specialized
caseload has an average caseload of 56 direct-supervision probationers.5 This caseload allows the
officer to devote an average of 51 minutes to each probationer each month.6
CONDITIONS OF RELEASE
Postrelease supervision always involves a set of release conditions, requirements that the prisoner
is obligated to fulfill as a condition of his or her release to the community. Some release
conditions are standard components of supervision while others are tailored to address a
particular offender’s needs. Failing to fulfill all release conditions can, at a minimum, lead to
sanctions and, at a maximum, can lead to supervision revocation and reincarceration.
With probation, the judge typically establishes prisoners’ conditions of release when he
approves them for shock probation release (those probationers released from a community
corrections facility may have been assigned to aftercare programs). A typical probationer is
required to (1) comply with the law; (2) avoid “injurious and vicious habits”; (3) avoid contact
with persons and areas of “disreputable and harmful character”; (4) report to the probation
officer; (5) allow the probation officer to come in the home or another location; (6) work;
(7) remain within a specified county; (8) pay, if applicable, fines, fees, child support, the cost of
their court-appointed attorney, $100 to the victim, the law enforcement costs resulting from the
handling and disposing of any materials collected in the case, the cost of the victim’s counseling,
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
99
and up to $50 to Crimestoppers; (9) participate in a program; and (10) be tested for use of illicit
substances.7
The judge may also require the ex-prisoner to abide by special conditions. The most
frequently ordered conditions include residence in a halfway house, adherence to sex offender
requirements, intensive supervision, electronic monitoring, drug testing, participation in treatment
or educational programs, and counseling.8 The judge may also require that the prisoner reside in
one of CJAD’s 36 community correctional facilities, about half of which focus on substance
abuse treatment. With a capacity of 3,030 beds, these centers served 12,335 probationers in 2002.
Slightly more than half of those served participated in substance abuse treatment centers (see
table B.1 for disaggregation by facility type).9
Table B.1. Community corrections facilities, capacity, and usage for probationers, FY 2002
Facility type
Bed capacity
Total served
All residential substance abuse treatment programs
1,404
6,619
Intermediate sanction facility
422
2,078
Local boot camps
480
1,446
Restitution centers
724
2,192
3,030
12,335
Total
Source: Community Justice Assistance Division.
Like parolees, probationers make significant contributions in time and earnings. In 2001,
probationers provided 9.4 million hours in community service, which is worth around $49 million
if valued at minimum wage.10 Also in 2001, the CSCDs collected $237 million in fees from
probationers. Almost half of these fees ($112 million) were used to cover around a third of the
cost of administering probation; $68 million was distributed to state and county agencies; and $47
million was devoted to victim compensation.11 On average, probationers paid $30 each in fees per
month.12 Probation officers reported that fee collection accounted for approximately 20 percent of
their time.13 Based on a sample of probationers in six counties, most (75 percent) are employed in
full-time positions and are therefore able to pay these fines; their median annual salary is
$18,200.14 In a TDCJ-CJAD survey, about half of all CSCD directors reported that 50 percent of
all probationers have trouble making their payments and 17 percent are unable to make their
payments. 15
INTENSITY OF SUPERVISION
The intensity of a prisoner’s postrelease supervision depends on the estimated risk that he poses
to public safety given his background, reentry challenges, and other individual characteristics. In
short, the greater the risk an offender poses, the greater the intensity of supervision he receives.
To determine a prisoner’s risk, both probation and parole officers use standardized assessment
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
100
tools.16 Following is a description of the various levels of supervision administered through
probation.
Local Community Supervision Correction Departments (CSCD) have either three or four
levels of supervision. Very low-risk probationers are supervised under level I, low risk
probationers are supervised under level II, medium-risk probationers are supervised under level
III, high-risk probationers are supervised under level IV, and very high-risk probationers are
supervised under level V.17 The only requirement by the state is that probationers meet with
probation officers once every 90 days; CSCDs then set the requirements entailed in each
supervision level. Most felony probationers receive level III supervision. The requirements
entailed in this level and other levels are determined locally by each CSCD.
REVOCATIONS
Sentences to prison for felony probation revocations19
steadily increased between 1988 and 2002, rising from
13,900 to 21,485. Although the probation revocation rate
remained stable, the growth in the felony probation
population caused the increase in total revocations. In
A Barrier to Greater Use of
Alternatives to Revocation
Three-quarters of district attorneys
and district judges stated that they
would be more likely to use
probation as an alternative to
revocation if additional communitybased residential beds were
available.18 But, in spite of the
growth in the probation population,
the
capacity
of
community
corrections facilities has fallen
from 4,571 beds in 1995 to 2,735
beds in 2002. At any given time,
approximately 832 men and 371
women are awaiting placement
into these facilities with an
average wait time of 2.6 months
and 4.9 months, respectively.
2002, probation revocations accounted for 32 percent of all
TDCJ admissions. Broken down by TDCJ facility type,
they accounted for 32 percent of all state prison admissions
and 33 percent of all state felony jail admissions.
Technical violations constitute a growing
percentage of felony probation revocations: in 1993, 42
percent of all such revocations were for technical
violations and, by 1999, 55 percent were.20 Since 1999, the
percentage of technical violations has plateaued.21 The
primary reasons for the majority (63 percent) of technical
violations were two or more positive drug tests,
incompletion of treatment, failure to appear at scheduled
meetings, and noncompliance with restrictions (such as sex
offender requirements and electronic monitoring).22 Nearly all technical violators were delinquent
in repayment of fees (on average $1,923), but less than 1 percent were revoked solely for this
reason. When probation is revoked for a technical violation, the probationer serves the full term
of incarceration; time served on probation in the community does not count toward the sentence
unless the judge reduces the original sentence accordingly.23
The local prosecutor or the probation officer may begin the probation revocation
24
process. Although local processes may differ, generally the local prosecutor or the CSCD files a
“motion to revoke,” a warrant or a certified letter is given to the probationer, and a hearing is
arranged. At the hearing, the probationer pleads either “true” or “not true.” If the probationer
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
101
pleads the latter, a trial is arranged. If the probationer pleads the former, his probation may be
revoked, he may remain on probation supervision after incarceration, he may be placed in a
community corrections facility, or the motion to revoke could be dismissed.
As an alternative to sending probation violators to prison or state jail, judges can place
them in intermediate sanction facilities, court residential treatment centers, substance abuse
treatment facilities, restitution centers, substance abuse felony punishment facilities, boot camps,
and halfway houses. In 2001, 9,913 probationers were served in these community corrections
facilities (includes probationers who were not violators) while 9,116 were sent to state jail and
11,594 were sent to prison for violations (figure B.1).25 The average cost of placing a revoked
probationer in a community corrections facility totaled $6,177, while CJPC reported that the
average cost of revocation to state jail was $8,448 and $40,538 to state prison.
Figure B.1. Probation revocations as a percentage of TDCJ admissions, FY 1988 to FY 2002
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
All revocations
1998
2000
2002
Probation
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Criminal Justice Policy Council data.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
102
Appendix B Notes
1
The number of confinees given split sentences is small (390, or 1.8 percent of all state jail releases in
2002). Although the total number is not available, the number of state prisoners given split sentences is
estimated to be small as well, per a conversation with Criminal Justice Policy Council staff in April 2003.
A split sentence is not considered discretionary because the judge awards probation at the time of
sentencing rather than during the prisoner’s incarceration (with consideration of the prisoner’s institutional
behavior).
2
The state provides two-thirds of all funding (probationers pay the rest), oversight, and technical
assistance; and counties provide office space, equipment, and administrative assistance. For more
information, see the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s Community Justice Assistance Division
website, http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/cjad/cjad-home.htm. (Accessed December 31, 2003.)
3
Direct supervision probationers are those who are on probation, live or are employed in the area in which
they are supervised, and have at least one in-person contact with a probation officer every three months.
Indirect supervision probationers are on probation but never report in person to a probation officer “because
they have transferred out of their original CSCD or county to another state, another CSCD, or county; they
report by mail; they have absconded; or they are incarcerated in county jail, prison, or State Jail (and they
have a term of community supervision to complete upon release from incarceration).” (Sources: Criminal
Justice Policy Council. 2003. “Parole and Mandatory Supervision Population, Fiscal Years 1988 to 2002.”
In Statistical Tables: Parole and Time Served, p. 15. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council; Criminal
Justice Policy Council. 2003. “Total Direct Probation Supervision Population, Fiscal Years 1988 to 2002.”
In Statistical Tables: Probation, p. 15. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.)
4
These probationers are under direct supervision, which is comparable to active parole. A typical probation
officer also has 36 probationers who are under indirect supervision. A probation officer has a smaller
caseload if it includes more probationers that are on active supervision (meaning the probationers report
directly to the probation officer) than on inactive supervision.
5
On average, an officer with a specialized caseload is also responsible for 19 indirect supervision
probationers.
6
TexaSuperVision. 2002. Probation: Legislative Overview, pp. 2–3. Austin, TX: TexaSuperVision.
7
For a full list, see Larry Gist. 2002. Summary and Citation: Statutory Probation Conditions. February.
Unpublished document.
8
Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 1998. Parole in Texas.
Austin: Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/publications/parole/parole_in_tx/pit-home.htm. (Accessed January 2, 2004.)
9
Residential substance abuse treatment programs include court residential treatment centers, substance
abuse treatment facilities, and residential substance abuse treatment facilities. Additionally, 145
probationers resided in a community corrections halfway house and 65 resided in facilities for offenders
with mental impairments; data for the total number of beds available in these facilities were not provided.
(Source: Wynde L. Jones. 2003. Community Supervision in Texas: Summary Statistics, pp. 26–27. Austin:
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Community Justice Assistance Division, Research and Evaluation.)
10
Bonita White. 2003. “Overview of Community Supervision in the Context of a Budget Crisis,” p. 12.
Austin, TX: Presentation to the House Committee on Corrections Interim Committee on February 18.
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/publications/cjad/fact-sheets/House_Report_2-18-03.pdf. (Accessed January 2,
2004.)
11
TexaSuperVision. 2002. Community Supervision: Legislative Overview, pp. 2–3. Austin, TX:
TexaSuperVision.
12
Per TDCJ Community Justice Assistance Division staff on August 26, 2003.
13
TexaSuperVision. 2002. Community Supervision: Legislative Overview, p. 3. Austin, TX:
TexaSuperVision.
14
Seventeen percent of probationers were unemployed, 7 percent worked in part-time positions, and 1
percent performed seasonal work. The sample may not be representative; it includes Galveston, Fort Bend,
Hood, Jasper, Jack, and Wise CSCDs. (Source: Bonita White. 2002. “An Overview of Community
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
103
Correction Fees Collected by Community Supervision and Corrections Departments,” pp. 11–12. Austin,
TX: Presentation to the House Committee on Corrections Interim Committee on April 2.
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/publications/cjad/fact-sheets/House_Report_Fees_Final_4-02-02.pdf. [Accessed
January 2, 2004.])
15
Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the Community Justice Assistance Division. 2002. Fee
Collections in Community Supervision and Corrections Departments. Austin: Texas Department of
Criminal Justice and the Community Justice Assistance Division.
16
In 1985, the Texas legislature required that the Board of Pardons and Paroles develop guidelines to assess
parolees’ risk levels. At the recommendation of the Criminal Justice Policy Council and the National
Institute of Corrections, a consulting firm recently revised these guidelines; parole officers began using
them in 2001. (Source: Criminal Justice Policy Council. 2003. An Overview of Texas Parole Guidelines,
December 2001. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.)
17
Per TDCJ Community Justice Assistance Division, Research and Evaluation unit staff on August 26,
2003.
18
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Community Supervision and Corrections Departments, and
Judicial Advisory Council. 2002. Texas Residential Programs Community Corrections Facilities, p. 7.
Report to House Corrections Interim Committee in Austin, TX, on July 16.
19
Includes probationers who were placed on probation as part of a split sentence and those who were
placed on probation alone; however, few probationers are expected to have been given a split sentence
since these types of sentences are rarely awarded.
20
Wynde L. Jones. 2000. Community Supervision in Texas: Summary Statistics. Austin: Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Community Justice Assistance Division, Research and Evaluation.
21
Per TDCJ Community Justice Assistance Division, Research and Evaluation unit staff on August 26,
2003.
22
Criminal Justice Policy Council. 2002. “Trends, Profile, and Policy Issues Related to Felony Probation
Revocations in Texas. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.
23
Ibid.
24
All information describing the probation revocation process was obtained from TDCJ Community Justice
Assistance Division, Research and Evaluation unit staff on August 26, 2003.
25
The total number of probationers diverted from state prison and state jail for violations is unknown and
difficult to estimate, per TDCJ Community Justice Assistance Division, Research and Evaluation unit staff,
August 26, 2003.
A PORTRAIT OF PRISONER REENTRY IN TEXAS
104